s.openembedded.org>
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 6/6] xz: Remove GPLv3 license checksum
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 08:07 -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
> > > On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 04:42:41PM -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/4/19 4:27 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 08:07:58AM -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of things used
On 9/4/19 4:27 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 08:07:58AM -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
>> ...
>>> In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of things used to
>>> build the software (such as makefiles, autoconf fragments,
On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 16:18 -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/4/19 3:53 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I am getting more and more confused about both the patch and the
> > semantics of LICENSE.
> >
> > The status quo in the recipe is:
> >
> > <-- snip ->
> >
> > # The source includes bits of PD,
On 9/4/19 4:18 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/4/19 3:53 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 08:07 -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
> Mark,
>
> In reference to "It typically
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 08:07:58AM -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
>...
> > In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of things used to
> > build the software (such as makefiles, autoconf fragments, etc)".
> > Since the only file that is licensed
On 9/4/19 3:53 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 08:07 -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>> On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
Mark,
In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of
things
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 08:07 -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
> > On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of
> > > things used to
> > > build the software
On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 08:07 -0400, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of
> > things used to
> > build the software (such as makefiles, autoconf fragments, etc)".
> > Since the only file that is
On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
> Mark,
>
> In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of things used to
> build the software (such as makefiles, autoconf fragments, etc)".
> Since the only file that is licensed under GPLv3 is a M4 macro, does that mean
> the current patch
Mark,
In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of things used
to build the software (such as makefiles, autoconf fragments, etc)".
Since the only file that is licensed under GPLv3 is a M4 macro, does that
mean the current patch is still valid? Shouldn't the GPLv3 license be
On 8/27/19 1:04 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 01:50:14PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:46 PM Wes Lindauer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Although xz has some files that are GPLv3 licensed, none of them get
>>> packaged up, and therefore none of it ends up in the
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 01:50:14PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:46 PM Wes Lindauer
> wrote:
> >
> > Although xz has some files that are GPLv3 licensed, none of them get
> > packaged up, and therefore none of it ends up in the final rootfs. Since
> > there is no GPLv3 code
Yes, I see that could be a valid concern. Is this a sign that poky needs
per-package LIC_FILES_CHKSUM variables the same way each package can set
different LICENSE values? I would like to continue to use Yocto to collect
licenses for compliance reasons, but in this case I am getting an incorrect
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:46 PM Wes Lindauer wrote:
>
> Although xz has some files that are GPLv3 licensed, none of them get
> packaged up, and therefore none of it ends up in the final rootfs. Since
> there is no GPLv3 code in the final image, we don't want to include it
> when we collect
15 matches
Mail list logo
