On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:53:12AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: [...] > > it gets weirder ... the project i'm working with is based on morty > so that variable *would* still be relevant, but even adding > "Unlicense" to that variable didn't stop the offending recipe > from still generating a warning. so i thought, "i wonder if there are > any other recipes in the layers i'm working with that have > 'Unlicense," and sure enough, there's one: pyelftools (created > in-house). > > so i added pyelftools to the image i'm building, but *that* recipe > *didn't* generate a warning, so now i'm thoroughly baffled. and, > finally, i decided to check the current state of pyelftools to see > what its licensing is, and in meta-python, we have the recipe > python3-pyelftools_0.25.bb, wherein we read: > > LICENSE = "PD" > > argh ... and if one checks OE/meta/files/common-licenses, there is > indeed a license file named "PD" whose contents are simply: > > This is a placeholder for the Public Domain License > > so now i'm not sure if a "Unlicense" license file is redundant or > what. >
If Unlicense and Public Domain (PD) were actual synonyms we could put them into the SPDXLICENSEMAP in openembedded-core/meta/conf/licenses.conf, but according to https://unlicense.org/ lists there should be a difference between both. It looks like it's decently used though as GitHub reported that 2% of the projects they host are Unlicense-licensed[1] which is more than BSD-2 or [AL]GPLv3! [1] https://github.blog/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ > i'm confused. > Since we have [AL]GPLv3 "support", I'd say Unlicense has its place as well. Quentin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#49399): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/49399 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/74178255/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
