<div dir="ltr">On 10 October 2017 at 21:56, Paul Eggleton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com" target="_blank">paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Sorry to dredge this up, but when do you see the need to specify a different<br>
image LICENSE?<br>
<br>
Logically, an image recipe's LICENSE can only refer to the recipe itself and<br>
whatever files might be pulled in by it directly (usually none, but some<br>
people re-enable do_fetch and do_unpack to allow this), since otherwise the<br>
contents of the image are covered by the licenses of all of the recipes that<br>
build the packages that go into it, and we already assemble a license manifest<br>
for the image to cover those. Does that match your interpretation?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In the general case this is true but I guess rootfs postinstall hooks can create file which are not covered by the package licenses.</div><div><br></div><div>Ross </div></div></div></div>