On Mon, 2020-07-06 at 18:16 +0200, Matthias Schoepfer wrote:
> On 5/26/20 1:37 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I think we need to be really clear about what the license of ${PN}-lic
> > means.
> >
> > That leads to a really good question, which license is the license text
> > itself under?
> >
> > I've asked this on our licensing list to see if anyone knows.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
>
> I do not mean to annoy you by any means, but what is the status here.
> What would be a good approach? Adrian said, at least GPL License is free
> to copy and distribute. So another idea would be, to generally whitelist
> those license packages instead one by one.
I did eventually get a response from the people on the SPDX-legal
mailing list. There wasn't a 100% clear consensus but for Yocto
Project/OE's situation, I think the LICENSE for these packages needs to
be:
XXX-license-text
which for SPDX identifiers would be exported as:
LicenseRef-XXX-license-text
The idea here is to spell out that it is the license text. People can
then process that accordingly in output data from the build system but
its clear its different from the license itself. It avoids us making
any claims as to what this license actually is, for the FSF licences
its relatively clear, for others it may not be.
We could factor all of the *GPL licenses into "FSF-license-text" since
they're all common as far as I know, but that isn't easily automated so
is probably not worth doing.
Does that help move things forward?
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#140356):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/140356
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/74473621/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
