In our license look at Section 4. It explicitly states that open source is not covered in this EULA. This EULA is for only proprietary packages.
This statement was created by our lawyer. She did not like the language used before and wanted it to change to this language. Regardless, patch must be reverted or it causes build breaks on legacy patches. We can think of another solution for Yocto 1.9 but current patch will not work. Lauren -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daiane Angolini Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:39 PM To: Post Lauren-RAA013 Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] [fsl-community-bsp-base][PATCH v2] setup-environment: Update pre-EULA language to support older licenses. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Lauren Post <[email protected]> wrote: > Some legacy packages will contain older versions of licenses. This language > explains that the conflict in license should use the license in package. > > V2 - format to 80 characters per line > > Signed-off-by: Lauren Post <[email protected]> > --- > setup-environment | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/setup-environment b/setup-environment index > 7034cc5..e8cd216 100755 > --- a/setup-environment > +++ b/setup-environment > @@ -186,9 +186,10 @@ fi > if [ "$EULA" = "ask" ]; then > cat <<EOF > > -Some BSPs depend on libraries and packages which are covered by > Freescale's -End User License Agreement (EULA). To have the right to > use these binaries in -your images, you need to read and accept the > following... > +All software is subject to agreement to, and compliance with, > +Freescale's End What do you mean by "All software"? In my point of view, if the EULA agreement remains the same we have today, and the only change is the text shown during first setup-environment, when you say "All software" you mean all software provided by yocto/oe-core/open-embedded/poky/external layer/ and not all software from freescale. Even if we think about all software provided by Freescale, there are still packages under GPLv2 licensing with no need of EULA agreement. I really prefer to have one EULA(=license) for each package. And I really prefer to drop the need of the agreement at the setup-environment. It would be perfect if we could use the commercially licensing mechanism we already have with yocto http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.8/mega-manual/mega-manual.html#enabling-commercially-licensed-recipes So one must only accept the licenses (EULAs) they are really going to use in end-product. I think changing the text and reverting the patch is still not enough. It does not fix the problem pointed/highlighted by Stefan and does not include a multi-EULA mechanism. Daiane > +User License Agreement. To have the right to use these binaries in > +your images, you must read and accept the following terms. If there > +are conflicting terms embedded in the software, the terms embedded in the > Software will control. > > EOF > > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > -- > _______________________________________________ > meta-freescale mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale -- _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
