From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Greylist: delayed 3604 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at layers.openembedded.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:34:08 UTC Received: from vms173021pub.verizon.net (vms173021pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.21]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D207A6A9D4 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:34:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [108.18.33.160]) by vms173021.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0NC0005DLJW7CP40@vms173021.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:33:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C50DC2069A; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:33:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:33:43 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20140916213343.GW2480@denix.org> References: <5417FED2.1030106@pseudoterminal.org> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <5417FED2.1030106@pseudoterminal.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:34:10 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:11:46AM +0200, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote: > On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote: > >Hi Carlos/All > > > >I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to > > > >meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb > > > >in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since > > > >The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here > > > >http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607 > > > >So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial distribution ? > > > >Thanks > > > >-Khem > > It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties. This is also the > reason why gst-plugins-ugly and gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this > flag. But does gst-plugins-ugly provide own codecs? It's mostly a collection of external plugins, so it shouldn't itself be marked as "commercial": http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/51055 -- Denys