On Tuesday 25 February 2014 10:50:08 Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello Diego, > > (adding Khem and Paul in Cc) > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Diego Sueiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Otavio Salvador > > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > >> This license is the same of Qt itself so I don't think it needs to be > >> quoted here. Do you see any reason for it? > > > > I've just followed Khem's instructions: > > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2014-February/08 > > 9888.html > I see; however this license is no different of rest of Qt so we can > assume the user of Qt knows the license (and has reviewed possible > impacts of it with their legal department). > > What others think?
Are we talking about the license of the packagegroup? Technically, the packagegroup itself doesn't actually ship any files, so personally I've always considered the LICENSE value for packagegroup recipes to be irrelevant. I have a similar view on the LICENSE value for image and SDK recipes, since there it's not really practical to express all of the package licenses in a single field, so it's not worth trying - the license manifest should be used for that. Cheers, Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation (UK) Limited Registered No. 1134945 (England) Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
