[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH 4/4] faad2: set LICENSE_FLAGS

[Khem Raj]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 4:32 PM Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, 22 March 2019 10:29:13 AM NZDT Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:09 PM Joshua Watt <jpewhacker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2018-08-13 at 19:50 +0200, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > > Commercial usage requires a license according to the homepage, so set
> > > > LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" to indicate that.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb | 2 ++
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb b/meta-
> > > > oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb
> > > > index b777831ad..9e5a3817a 100644
> > > > --- a/meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb
> > > > +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb
> > > > @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ LICENSE = "GPLv2"
> > > >
> > > >  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
> > > > "file://COPYING;md5=381c8cbe277a7bc1ee2ae6083a04c958"
> > > >
> > > > +LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial"
> > > > +
> > >
> > > My understanding was that faad2 was GPLv2, but you could *optionally*
> > > get a commercial license for it if you needed one. Is the LICENSE_FLAG
> > > necessary in that case? It seems like the default license of GPLv2
> > > would apply unless you worked something out with them to get a
> > > commercial license?
> >
> > Sometimes the use determines the license enforcement. e.g. it might
> > be GPLed for personal use but not for selling products.
>
> Also, the GPL unfortunately is not the only concern if you read the full
> upstream README.  I think it's best to err on the side of caution, after
> all
> there is the ability for to set LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST signifying "yes I
> have
> checked and my usage is OK".
>

I would tend to agree

>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> --
>
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre
>
>
>