[oe] LICENSE field format

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/10/20 Denys Dmytriyenko <denis at denix.org>:
> All,
>
> We've had a number of discussions on the license matter recently. Trying to
> unify those brings us to the question of the LICENSE field format in recipes.
> As some projects are dual/triple licensed or use multiple licenses at the same
> time, it becomes hard to specify it all in the LICENSE field, especially when
> there are no rules defined. We do have several different formats used to
> separate multiple licenses, which is quite confusing and doesn't make it clear
> whether licenses are AND-ed or OR-ed (I know those are not legal terms, but
> for the purpose of this discussion that's fine :)) Here are some examples:
>
> LICENSE = "License1 License2"
> LICENSE = "License1|License2"
> LICENSE = "License1, License2"
> LICENSE = "License1+License2"
> LICENSE = "License1/License2"
>
> LICENSE = "Very Long License Name"
> LICENSE = "License with some exceptions"
>
> To make matters worse, src_distribute.bbclass splits the field at spaces and
> creates directories for each token. So, for the last two examples above, we
> end up with 4 directories for every license - each word is a separate
> directory...
>
> I'd like to raise this issue and start a discussion on unifying the LICENSE
> field format (and fixing src_distribute.bbclass accordingly). Would be nice to
> collect some ideas here on the maillist and/or discuss it further during OEDEM
> next week. Please feel free to comment.
>
> --
> Denys

What do others do?
I know debian has a license file. (and actually that could probably be
a good source of info to set our LICENSE field)

Frans