From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.17]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P8fRB-0007v0-PA for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:39:06 +0200 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [71.255.228.135]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LAL00L9EW048UJ3@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:38:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 720D014AF64; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:38:28 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20101020203828.GU11514@denix.org> MIME-version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.46.173.17 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: denis@denix.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: LICENSE field format X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:39:06 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline All, We've had a number of discussions on the license matter recently. Trying to unify those brings us to the question of the LICENSE field format in recipes. As some projects are dual/triple licensed or use multiple licenses at the same time, it becomes hard to specify it all in the LICENSE field, especially when there are no rules defined. We do have several different formats used to separate multiple licenses, which is quite confusing and doesn't make it clear whether licenses are AND-ed or OR-ed (I know those are not legal terms, but for the purpose of this discussion that's fine :)) Here are some examples: LICENSE = "License1 License2" LICENSE = "License1|License2" LICENSE = "License1, License2" LICENSE = "License1+License2" LICENSE = "License1/License2" LICENSE = "Very Long License Name" LICENSE = "License with some exceptions" To make matters worse, src_distribute.bbclass splits the field at spaces and creates directories for each token. So, for the last two examples above, we end up with 4 directories for every license - each word is a separate directory... I'd like to raise this issue and start a discussion on unifying the LICENSE field format (and fixing src_distribute.bbclass accordingly). Would be nice to collect some ideas here on the maillist and/or discuss it further during OEDEM next week. Please feel free to comment. -- Denys