[oe] [RFC] LICENSE fields and packages

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Tuesday 25 of November 2008 22:57:27 Koen Kooi napisał(a):
> On 25-11-08 22:42, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> > Tuesday 25 of November 2008 22:02:00 Koen Kooi napisał(a):

> >> The concrete problem I have is that I have a bunch of licenses
> >> that don't have a name (not even inside the company that wrote
> >> them), so my recipes have things like
> >>
> >> LICENSE = "proprietary binary"
> >> LICENSE = "evil binary"
> >
> > So add license.txt into /usr/share/doc/${PN}/ with content of that
> > package license. I have done few such packages during last year as
> > some copyright holders gave permissions to distribute their stuff
> > *ONLY* with attached license. This kind of stuff does not even need
> > nothing new - it is just another file in SRC_URI.

> I like that idea very much, but the license file will have to be in
> every entry in PACKAGES, so ${PN} won't work. Do you have a
> suggestion on how to handle that?

${PN}-license package on which all entries from PACKAGES will RDEPEND?

> >> So as short term solution I'd like to be able to point to a url
> >> for the 'licenses without a proper name'
> >
> > Yeah.. especially when license contents is available only in
> > restricted area for which simple person can not get access (for
> > example Marvell extranet). If there are packages which have own
> > license then such license should be inside of package.
>
> So you agree that in those situations we can point to an URL, but in
> other cases either use the name or include it in the package?

No, I mean that if license is not one of popular ones covered by 
base-files-doc or common-licenses package it should be added into OE 
metadata. Ok, it can be a bit of overkill adding all those 'povray', 
'openssl' etc licenses but when we will end then it will be clear how 
each recipe is licensed.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw at jabber.org
Website:  http://blog.haerwu.biz/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz