> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <openembedded- > [email protected]> On Behalf Of Adrian Bunk > Sent: den 4 september 2019 21:54 > To: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> > Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer <openembedded- > [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 6/6] xz: Remove GPLv3 license checksum > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 08:07 -0400, Mark Hatle wrote: > > > On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote: > > > > Mark, > > > > > > > > In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of > > > > things used to > > > > build the software (such as makefiles, autoconf fragments, etc)". > > > > Since the only file that is licensed under GPLv3 is a M4 macro, > > > > does that mean > > > > the current patch is still valid? Shouldn't the GPLv3 license be > > > > removed from > > > > this recipe? > > > > > > Unless the M4 file is generating/injecting code into the build(very > > > few I've > > > seen do this), then I would say it's not under GPLv3 at all. (And > I > > > wouldn't > > > have included GPLv3 in the LICENSE statement.) > > > > > > But we need more consensus then just me saying so. > > > > > > This may be a good question for the OE-TSC to ensure that we have > > > clarification > > > on this issue, and it's not just me saying I think one way or > > > another. > > > > Not sure it needs to go to the TSC, we just need a patch which > clearly > > says why the LICENSE statement is incorrect. I don't think the > original > > patch in the series was clear about why GPLv3 didn't apply but if the > > commit message is improved, its probably fine. > > I am getting more and more confused about both the patch and the > semantics of LICENSE. > > The status quo in the recipe is: > > <-- snip -> > > # The source includes bits of PD, GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2.1+, but the only > file > # which is GPLv3 is an m4 macro which isn't shipped in any of our > packages, > # and the LGPL bits are under lib/, which appears to be used for > libgnu, which > # appears to be used for DOS builds. So we're left with GPLv2+ and PD. > LICENSE = "GPLv2+ & GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception & LGPLv2.1+ & PD" > LICENSE_${PN} = "GPLv2+" > LICENSE_${PN}-dev = "GPLv2+" > LICENSE_${PN}-staticdev = "GPLv2+" > LICENSE_${PN}-doc = "GPLv2+" > LICENSE_${PN}-dbg = "GPLv2+" > LICENSE_${PN}-locale = "GPLv2+" > LICENSE_liblzma = "PD" > > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=97d554a32881fee0aa283d96e47cb24a \ > > file://COPYING.GPLv2;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263 \ > > file://COPYING.GPLv3;md5=d32239bcb673463ab874e80d47fae504 \ > > file://COPYING.LGPLv2.1;md5=4fbd65380cdd255951079008b364516c \ > > file://lib/getopt.c;endline=23;md5=2069b0ee710572c03bb3114e4532cd84 \ > " > > <-- snip --> > > My confusion about the patch is that it removes COPYING.GPLv3 from > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM but keeps GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception in LICENSE. > > My confusion about the semantics of LICENSE is that I fail to find a > clear statement in the documentation that the legal meaning of LICENSE > in OE is what Mark claims it would be. Is this just Marks personal > opinion on what should be done, or is this undocumented tribal > knowledge, or is the exact semantics of LICENSE documented > somewhere in a language that lawyers understand? > > My guess for the latter would be "undocumented tribal knowledge", > and clarification is required what is actually correct or incorrect > here. And I think this is also what Mark was asking for. > > > Cheers, > > > > Richard > > cu > Adrian
Another thing that complicates this further is related to gathering and distributing the license information. E.g., if one uses COPY_LIC_DIR = "1" to automatically include all the license information for all packages installed in the image, this will include everything listed in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM regardless of which packages were installed. I.e., even if only liblzma (which is PD) is installed from xz, all of the GPL license texts will be installed in /usr/share/common-licenses/xz... //Peter -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
