Re: [PATCH] fsl-eula-unpack: deploy Freescale EULA

[Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>]

Hi Ann and Lauren,

On 06/03/2015 09:15 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Ann Thornton 
> <Ann.Thornton@freescale.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Here is the problem:  The EULA is updated frequently with changes
>> that really don't matter to existing packages.  New 3rd party
>> requirements are added that apply to new packages, typos are
>> occasionally fixed, and so on.
>> 
>> If this patch is limiting us to only one EULA in all packages, that
>> means all of the older packages have to be updated with new EULAs
>> and a new version number every few months.  That is just not going
>> to happen.  Not to mention other groups that have older packages as
>> well.  The core of the EULA has not changed and will not change
>> (the legal department has promised us that) so we expect that
>> future EULAs will be in line with the current ones.
>> 
>> It looks like Stefan is saying that the using
>> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM_append will override the problem.  But we will
>> need to put that in all the recipes so the end result will nullify
>> this patch, I think.
> 
> Ann, we need to separate two issues here:
> 
> - technical - legal
> 

I think (Stefan, please confirm) that the reason for this patch
has to do with the way that the EULAs are "accepted" by the user.

The current process involves an acknowledgement of a single
"Freescale EULA" in the setup-environment script.

If there are a dozen Freescale licenses in various packages,
do each of them need to be acked by the user before using them?

If so, can the Freescale legal folks put together an over-arching
license that covers all components? It seems that the EULA is
usually re-used and way broader than most of the patches (including
Microsoft, SanDisk, CSR and Global Locate, which likely don't have
rights in most of the covered components).

Please advise,


Eric