On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:29:55 Paul Eggleton wrote:
> For images and other recipes that don't pull in anything by themselves,
> there shouldn't be a need for LIC_FILES_CHKSUM (or indeed LICENSE) to be
> set at all - in order to understand the license for the result the
> appropriate place to look is
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:29:55PM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> Hi Olaf,
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:05:12 Olaf Mandel wrote:
> > I ran into QA issues when inadvertently replacing OEs LICENSE with
> > Yoctos LICENSE file. Why should recipes depend on the license for
> > the complete collection of
Hi Paul,
Am 21.10.2016 um 01:29 schrieb Paul Eggleton:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:05:12 Olaf Mandel wrote:
-Snipp-
>> There are additional recipes that reference the global LICENSE
>> file, but where I am not sure if a less blanket license declaration
>> is appropriate or not. Especially for
Hi Olaf,
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:05:12 Olaf Mandel wrote:
> I ran into QA issues when inadvertently replacing OEs LICENSE with
> Yoctos LICENSE file. Why should recipes depend on the license for
> the complete collection of layers? At least for "normal" recipes
> that generate target device
I ran into QA issues when inadvertently replacing OEs LICENSE with
Yoctos LICENSE file. Why should recipes depend on the license for
the complete collection of layers? At least for "normal" recipes
that generate target device packages, this makes no sense to me.
I patched out the global LICENSE
