From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vms173009pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.9]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P8gPS-0008WH-7r for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:41:25 +0200 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [71.255.228.135]) by vms173009.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LAL00L2JYVBN041@vms173009.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:40:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B95EB14AF64; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:40:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:40:22 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20101020214022.GW11514@denix.org> References: <20101020203828.GU11514@denix.org> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.46.173.9 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: Re: 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 21:41:25 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:17:29PM +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > 2010/10/20 Denys Dmytriyenko : > > 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 > > What do others do? > I know debian has a license file. (and actually that could probably be > a good source of info to set our LICENSE field) Debian uses "or" plus "and" keywords: License: GPL-2+ or Artistic-2.0 License: GPL-2+ and BSD Also, comma is used to change the priority of "or/and": License: GPL-2+ or Artistic-2.0, and BSD Licenses with spaces are allowed: License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception And, BTW, "GPL version 2 or later" is specified as "GPL-2+". The format is detailed here: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ I guess, we can try to adopt the "and/or" syntax... -- Denys