Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v5] package/dlib: new package

[Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 06:54:53 +0200
Roy Kollen Svendsen <roykollensvendsen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Roy Kollen Svendsen <roykollensvendsen@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes v4 -> v5:
>   - drop all sub-options, and instead rely on automatic dependencies  (suggested by Thomas)
>   - sort the ifeq's
>   - add entry in the DEVELOPERS file as part of the patch adding the package  (suggested by Thomas)
>   - convert 'OR' to lowercase in DLIB_LICENSES
>   - use the most common patterns for comments in hash-files

Thanks for this v5 that we have applied. I just have one comment below.

> +DLIB_LICENSE = \
> +	BSD-3-Clause (kissfft, pybind11) \
> +	BSL-1.0 (dlib, tools) \
> +	CC0-1.0 (examples) \
> +	libpng-2.0 (libpng) \
> +	MIT or CC0-1.0 (JoinPaths.cmake)

Since some of us are grouped in a Buildroot Hackathon this week-end, we
had a discussion about licenses. Two different aspects were discussed:

- Should we list all licenses, or only the licenses of things that
  really go into the target? For example above you list libpng-2.0 in
  fact we never use the bundled libpng code. You list MIT or CC0-1.0
  for JoinPaths.cmake but that never goes to the target. Or the
  pybind11 code under BSD-3-Clause is most likely never built with your
  current packaging of dlib.

  It looks like the consensus was that <pkg>_LICENSE should only list
  the licenses of things that really go into the target. But that
  semantic should be discussed and clarified in our documentation.

  An issue that was raised was about licensing of the SDK, if the SDK
  is distributed, but it looks like the consensus was that this is less
  "relevant" than what goes on the target, and for the SDK, sharing the
  full source code of everything ensures that all license texts are
  provided.

- Should we list all the licenses of "integrated code" or only the
  main, final license. For example here there's some BSD-3-Clause code
  that's integrated, but the final license chosen by the dlib
  maintainers is BSL-1.0.

  It looks like the consensus was that <pkg>_LICENSE should probably
  only list licenses the "main" license, for example BSL-1.0 in this
  case.

I'm not really sure how to move forward with these topics though.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot