Hi Robert, On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 08:41:25AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > for the first time, i'm digging around in the docs for how to > properly license various types of recipes, so a couple simple > questions to start with, at least so i can make a first pass of > cleaning up some content in front of me. > > as we established recently, packagegroup files need no licensing, > the obvious observation being that they represent the collection of > licenses that comprise them. however, i notice that the > packagegroup.bbclass file does indeed define a default license: > > LICENSE ?= "MIT" > > so not only does a packagegroup have a default (MIT) license, but it's > conditional suggesting one could give it a different license. what > other licenses would make sense for a packagegroup? I'm sticking with > the default that packagegroup recipe files need no LICENSE assignment, > but now i'm curious as to what other options there are (or perhaps > that that default assignment in packagegroup.bbclass is obsolete). >
Wild guess: all packages need a license. MIT is quite permissive so safe as a default? > the same sort of question can be asked about image files, including > the generic OE core-image*.bb recipe files. of all those current > core-image files: > > core-image-base.bb > core-image-minimal.bb > core-image-minimal-dev.bb > core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb > core-image-minimal-mtdutils.bb > core-image-tiny-initramfs.bb > > fail into two camps. > > the first sets a license, then inherits core-image: > > LICENSE = "MIT" > inherit core-image > > the second type simply "require"s one of the other recipe files so it > has no need to set its own license, as in core-image-minimal-dev.bb: > > require core-image-minimal.bb > > similar to packagegroups, does a core-image recipe really need a > separate LICENSE setting, or could that be added to core-image.bbclass > to centralize it (if it's even needed at all)? > Don't know about this one but I guess it's some rest of the original implementation where I guess everything needed a LICENSE? I can only guess, but maybe this'll start a discussion :) > finally, WRT .bbappend files, the original recipes will have their > own licenses and if the .bbappend file is doing nothing but adding > some configuration (you know, PACKAGECONFIG, EXTRA_OEMAKE, that sort > of thing), then there should be no need for licensing in the bbappend > file. does all this sound reasonable so far? > I wouldn't expect any bbappend to modify a package/recipe license without changing the sources (version bump). But not much experience with that, so might be a valid use case? Cheers, Quentin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#53355): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/53355 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/82402742/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
