On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Flanagan, Elizabeth <[email protected]> wrote: > The rest of the packages in the bb should be inheriting LICENSE if no > PN level license is set. Which obviously causes problems for the above > example. > > In a case like above you'd want to do either of the following: > > a. Call out each package's license individually (better but can be > painful for recipes with lots of packages) > b. Leave GPLv3 out of LICENSE (easier but not technically accurate) so > undefined package level licensing inherits the correct LICENSE.
I wonder if a partially specified set of individual package settings should be identified by some sanity check (an explicit, rather than implicit, one, like recipe_sanity) as a potential bug / source of confusion. I suspect most of the time it should be one or the other, either no individual package LICENSEs are defined, or they all should be. -- Christopher Larson _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
