<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 March 2016 at 15:55, Burton, Ross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ross.burton@intel.com" target="_blank">ross.burton@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_extra"><span class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 March 2016 at 15:53, Helio Chissini De Castro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Helio.Castro@bmw-carit.de" target="_blank">Helio.Castro@bmw-carit.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt">Since all the packages now share exactly the same license, there's no reason anymore to specify each one of then, unless wanted to keep the names to know which packages are related to this recipe.<br>
<div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></span>That's a good point, thanks.</div><div class="yj6qo ajU"><div id=":aqx" class="ajR" tabindex="0"></div></div></blockquote></div><br>Follow up question - why not just set the recipe-scope LICENSE to GPL3-with-gcc-exception and remove all package-specific license assignments.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></div>