On Tue, 4 May 2021, Quentin Schulz wrote: > 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 packagegroup.bbclass is obsolete).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?
superficially makes sense, except that a packagegroup does not really define a "package". perhaps all *recipe* files need a license but, again, it's not clear how a packagegroup license should percolate down to the packages it contains. or how things would percolate up. suddenly, i want some coffee. > > 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? i'm not *trying* to be overly pedantic (well, yeah, i am :-), but given the importance of licensing these days, i want to understand how they work far more than i do at the moment, especially since my new co-workers are asking me about them. rday
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#53356): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/53356 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/82402742/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
