2010/10/20 Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]>: > All, > > We've had a number of discussions on the license matter recently. Trying to > unify those brings us to the question of the LICENSE field format in recipes. > As some projects are dual/triple licensed or use multiple licenses at the same > time, it becomes hard to specify it all in the LICENSE field, especially when > there are no rules defined. We do have several different formats used to > separate multiple licenses, which is quite confusing and doesn't make it clear > whether licenses are AND-ed or OR-ed (I know those are not legal terms, but > for the purpose of this discussion that's fine :)) Here are some examples: > > LICENSE = "License1 License2" > LICENSE = "License1|License2" > LICENSE = "License1, License2" > LICENSE = "License1+License2" > LICENSE = "License1/License2" > > LICENSE = "Very Long License Name" > LICENSE = "License with some exceptions" > > To make matters worse, src_distribute.bbclass splits the field at spaces and > creates directories for each token. So, for the last two examples above, we > end up with 4 directories for every license - each word is a separate > directory... > > I'd like to raise this issue and start a discussion on unifying the LICENSE > field format (and fixing src_distribute.bbclass accordingly). Would be nice to > collect some ideas here on the maillist and/or discuss it further during OEDEM > next week. Please feel free to comment. > > -- > Denys
What do others do? I know debian has a license file. (and actually that could probably be a good source of info to set our LICENSE field) Frans _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
