From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id B9667E00B58; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:14:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (jpewhacker[at]gmail.com) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.214.54 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from mail-it0-f54.google.com (mail-it0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C09E00A9B for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-f54.google.com with SMTP id m47so27408233iti.0 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:subject:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kzL3q20wtZrpGf93KibudvNxDa2jSqU70GU6xWKHlqA=; b=ZQWazrgYXaQeotQhRxpERgNQtyEts2FWQjmCOmy2XqWzux1+0X5G7L5ea3dZFPLYCs h1tOZVZnuvaRJla4B07IbUyuq2y8ubDxHURAszw9BngwZB0ojj4ExQE37v4zp7QDVKbU X5uTgusffEeemaznyhPDQC82VggMLYXqiSEeu/j99JLpHYR8V9MWqegFMBoP5916XzSA BlUFo41oPsI6a1ggxFFKg48gr27zk2FJNpPCPivYRoAAcLhCGPvjasYntJtEc+L59IOF n0lEJnWdoUtqi+QHXuIpddH9lMEBXk25ockQZ0fukjgr+sYzcD4iRgiNWQirQVvmQxkt kkuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:subject:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kzL3q20wtZrpGf93KibudvNxDa2jSqU70GU6xWKHlqA=; b=hQFzGRbKtltzDowdX1tlWFecfedugYCTPWMefRxMjh0KR7llv6krpjde+sicUi0YJc LB5CIPl78ckPGa7yDvl3dRexKG/qPHoeqXWlymUqU1KeBfrDmF2N/4YgeLK3tcuucO7L 0DH07dOF6vpx8HPkbW3Mt2fg23+ZcLqUP8am4qR1D8KsOj/CoRd0sVM16UVpxvCwD5Pu 8cJ2bBFxpZpPuPaBfW5T68t2xFqTQDxVRI4jAaaD6wtXUCGtFZeNhZamVBUPvDbHysOM N8yX0Hos8jy4LczPTk5cEqgGYENii4dnK2TSZIY0q8kH8T1ggNOL3RBfSWOgusO114bQ mxcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyVNIO9aaeP6og++4vwJFXiK7tiGX55LGNZarqU0pT0IRFTDE0r 4E1L6ZlQHNfFMQ== X-Received: by 10.36.29.6 with SMTP id 6mr10376942itj.59.1497618886551; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ola-842mrw1.ad.garmin.com ([204.77.163.55]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id d185sm1388690ioe.38.2017.06.16.06.14.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:14:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Joshua Watt X-Google-Original-From: Joshua Watt Message-ID: <1497618884.2549.1.camel@gmail.com> To: Thomas Thorne , "Burton, Ross" Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:14:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <75eaa4ef-ddd4-198e-4299-a5cad9ed570c@Net2Edge.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 (3.22.6-2.fc25) Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: Using A Proprietary Closed License Inside A Layer & Its Recipes X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 13:14:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 09:12 +0000, Thomas Thorne wrote: > >> Is it only possible to use the special > >> LICENSE = "CLOSED" > >> license for licenses not already placed in the main license > directory? > > > > Yes, there's special-case logic for 'CLOSED'.  Can you not just use > that for your internal pieces?  It's special-cased in a few places. >   > I can use CLOSED.  I just wanted to ensure I was following the > recommended or best practice.  >   > As this is an internal thing it should be OK for now.  I was > wondering what would happen if a closed licenses was updated, as > nothing would currently note the md5 change.  FWIW: We created a proprietary license file called files/common- licenses/company.txt in our proprietary layer, then added the following to layer.conf: COMPANY_COMMON_LICENSES := '${@os.path.normpath("${LAYERDIR}/files/com mon-licenses")}' BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST_append = " COMPANY_COMMON_LICENSES" Then a recipe can get the "standard" proprietary license by doing: LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${COMPANY_COMMON_LICENSES}/company.txt;md5=9b1139fa1fcb869069db eecca44350a5" It works pretty well and also make it clear what license the recipe is under. I believe that the BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST was necessary at the time to prevent changes in the project working path from causing a full rebuild of the all proprietary packages and so that the sstate signatures would match regardless, but I might be wrong about it being necessary. >   >   > The mega manual mentions CLOSED in 7 places.  One of those places > also lists "Proprietary" as a value so I could used either in some > cases.  Based on my reading of the manual "Proprietary" would not be > exempt from setting up the LIC_FILES_CHKSUM, but CLOSED would be.