From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41AA1C35FE4 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0506340391; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:33:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id u9bli51CW94y; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:32:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Comment: SPF check N/A for local connections - client-ip=140.211.166.34; helo=ash.osuosl.org; envelope-from=buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org; receiver= DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 9171F404DB Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9171F404DB; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6571BF357 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:32:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B852781DE1 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:32:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id bUWx0xJK_hKD for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:32:57 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2001:4b98:dc4:8::225; helo=relay5-d.mail.gandi.net; envelope-from=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com; receiver= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp1.osuosl.org 368D080F44 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 368D080F44 Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc4:8::225]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 368D080F44 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E6B51C0005; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:32:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:32:51 +0200 To: Roy Kollen Svendsen Message-ID: <20240915113251.7bb25ab7@windsurf> In-Reply-To: <20240915045455.1567220-1-roykollensvendsen@gmail.com> References: <20240915045455.1567220-1-roykollensvendsen@gmail.com> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.43; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-GND-Sasl: thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com X-Mailman-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1726392773; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZaSXvjiI0cFaynX3eRznJyGXNGY1eOR9RTD9jzq1yG4=; b=MKuvzn4dYDfEh71sxrMNOJk/TNwpeYywZx4DTNGdO3dWP3MhBXuolOfWi1XUy7SHdhiYsk LSwW//cY73cuANuUIZ3XTyOU/bnllXTVvVV1/m0buYpUjYc635n7NpWHHl1++0oJE8UNFP ICFoe3BhcuhOuqlm7tGIo9BZ7gr8/XEMGFBHNijhVk/zhrRQAvUIjRH/Mjl8GT+R5nDJBB gocD0PwczIgyYwe8TlvBB8CmePHXBa+lXKG6juoHfkLmfJEoF3MphhvqxICzx0dcJeEQN0 u7R4oVhRpHVHZqxVTb251wTcCF0LtgF78mgwmo5Yyhzmz4w7y5ZRYYPcqXt2Ig== X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=gm1 header.b=MKuvzn4d Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v5] package/dlib: new package X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot Reply-To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: buildroot@buildroot.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 06:54:53 +0200 Roy Kollen Svendsen wrote: > Signed-off-by: Roy Kollen Svendsen > --- > 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 _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 _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