On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:06:10PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Denys Dmytriyenko > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:38 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [oe] LICENSE field format > > > > 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" > > I would vote for something along the following lines: > > LICENSE = "License1|License2" > - This means the code is licensed under the terms of both licenses > > LICENSE = "License1,License2" > - This means the code can use either license exclusively > > in the src_distribute class spaces should be replaced with "-"s. Of course, > this could lead to licenses like "GPLv3+-with-GCC-RLE". > > We should avoid separating licenses with "/" because that will mess up the > directory structure or "+" because that would be confusing when + is also > used to mean "or later" for some licenses like the GPL.
Chase, I feel like those are just crutches and not the real solution to the problem. We should fix src_distribute class to work with the format we choose and not try to make the code happy by inventing workarounds in the format. In other words - the priority is to define a scalable, future-proof and easy to understand and follow format for the LICENSE field. And then make src_distribute class to behave accordingly - we can escape any special characters in there to make proper directory names, once we decide how to split the license field on individual items... -- Denys > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Openembedded-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
