Re: [meta-oe][PATCH 4/4] faad2: set LICENSE_FLAGS

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Friday, 22 March 2019 10:29:13 AM NZDT Khem Raj wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:09 PM Joshua Watt <jpewhacker@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2018-08-13 at 19:50 +0200, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > Commercial usage requires a license according to the homepage, so set
> > > LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" to indicate that.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb b/meta-
> > > oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb
> > > index b777831ad..9e5a3817a 100644
> > > --- a/meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb
> > > +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/faad2/faad2_2.7.bb
> > > @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ LICENSE = "GPLv2"
> > >
> > >  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
> > > "file://COPYING;md5=381c8cbe277a7bc1ee2ae6083a04c958"
> > >
> > > +LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial"
> > > +
> >
> > My understanding was that faad2 was GPLv2, but you could *optionally*
> > get a commercial license for it if you needed one. Is the LICENSE_FLAG
> > necessary in that case? It seems like the default license of GPLv2
> > would apply unless you worked something out with them to get a
> > commercial license?
> 
> Sometimes the use determines the license enforcement. e.g. it might
> be GPLed for personal use but not for selling products.

Also, the GPL unfortunately is not the only concern if you read the full 
upstream README.  I think it's best to err on the side of caution, after all 
there is the ability for to set LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST signifying "yes I have
checked and my usage is OK".

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre