On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 4:43 AM Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: > > The LICENSES file is already in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM. > > Unfortunately the files themselves usually don't have clear license headers, > but at least there is Copyright in them, so it might be possible to map the > LICENSES files sections to actual source files (in cases where it's not > explicitly mentioned) and then map these source files to package names and > set the LICENSE:<pkg> to match. > > I was waiting for an agreement that this is really needed as BSD is quite > permissive and it would be surprising if LGE was the only company which had > to fix this LICENSE issue (in long forgotten bbappend from 2014), so maybe > someone else have already better upstream-able change handy (and this e-mail > would be just a reminder to upstream it - my over-optimistic self said). >
I think this improves accuracy of our license representation so this is a good improvement > Cheers, > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 1:34 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2022-05-23 at 13:24 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> > * the main motivation is to get rid of this bbappend from 2014: >> > >> > https://github.com/openwebos/meta-webos/commit/8eb313e4303defbe495cf7f91974799046975fca >> > which unfortunately doesn't explain which files under BSD license are >> > included >> > in which package and also uses ambiguous 'BSD' license which was >> > removed from oe-core's common-licenses in: >> > >> > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?h=kirkstone&id=14d4c007c49652d836d325a12bdbcd3bfa42e6d5 >> > >> > * COPYING mentions only GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only as our LICENSE >> > variable says, >> > , but the LICENSES files lists various licenses with various Copyright >> > holders, the ones I was able to figure out where: >> > BSD-4-Clause-UC (but with 3rd clause explicitly removed) >> > ISC >> > BSD-3-Clause (with Intel Corportion copyright) >> > BSD-3-Clause (with Oracle America copyright) >> > which have just small formatting changes compared to corresponding >> > license in common-licenses, but there are couple more, should we >> > list them all (and create new common-licenses if needed)? >> > >> > * there were only 7 changes in LICENSES file since 2002: >> > >> > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=history;f=LICENSES;h=530893b1dc9ea00755603c68fb36bd4fc38a7be8;hb=HEAD >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <[email protected]> >> > --- >> > meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc >> > b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc >> > index 90a6a534f3..7e3dc3b816 100644 >> > --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc >> > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc >> > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ SUMMARY = "GLIBC (GNU C Library)" >> > DESCRIPTION = "The GNU C Library is used as the system C library in most >> > systems with the Linux kernel." >> > HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html"; >> > SECTION = "libs" >> > -LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only" >> > +LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only & BSD-4-Clause-UC & BSD-3-Clause >> > & ISC" >> > >> > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM ?= "file://LICENSES;md5=1541fd8f5e8f1579512bf05f533371ba >> > \ >> > file://COPYING;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263 \ >> >> I don't mind updating this but I think we'd need to add something to >> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM to show where the context under BSD* is... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#166040): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/166040 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/91285771/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
