From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 127F1E00953; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:11:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (twoerner[at]gmail.com) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.213.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37E7E00932 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so62693968igb.0 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:11:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wlmjcJmNO5zJo503xAr3aroSt+BN2ZIJTK5eBauRUOo=; b=rAFkFan67eZCWL/SxiEvAYxXfGDfjFx3q8GbDLmhuO309dUt+xPhcLDESy1xcpKMXC J/7fSL56FewkN/MRtzyJgYUK8C5VAvYvIPoZptIA9IrOU82yfCjOh2rZg8dr2y1qDF1x jTEcZU8Ltz248qQdLc+dqYBKIeQVxLTcsWAK6HSH6tn4P9Lkmdvj8MvoNFUJmvCZRv6f n/mWfJgQyoD/V2zoxBJJ8bzSV1jLA8Ot04xBOiWQUBUov79ZcmWuh9g+UvIZO4inSFHf mv2vVVsWGqebLvYlg+hvC25EJYIkDs56NNMoINynMpmD7DHQTLO4Q4S+gcbprxMvDAPY i9FQ== X-Received: by 10.42.226.69 with SMTP id iv5mr19123824icb.58.1429542696742; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.141.83] ([66.49.191.189]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 72sm11562580iof.36.2015.04.20.08.11.31 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5535171E.1040902@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:11:26 -0400 From: Trevor Woerner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org Subject: fsl EULA and license flags X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:11:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm evaluating a couple SBCs for use in a commercial product. There are several Freescale-based devices that interest me. The OE-based Freescale builds always have: ACCEPT_FSL_EULA = "1" and LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST = "commercial" I'm not a lawyer and I realize most of the people on this list aren't lawyers either, but does anyone have an armchair-lawyer or engineering-style explanation for the commercial ramifications of these options? All I need for now is enough information to help me decide if I should include Freescale devices in my short list or not. Can I build a usable core-image-minimal without those options?