From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 92568E0086D; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:46:05 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.220.44 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF91E005B9 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by padjw17 with SMTP id jw17so10819360pad.2 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:46:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TfhzqZBvEUfYnGp7VBT//zpyqWpexCba5Rbza+9Wvd0=; b=mEATw4yinSw8loagb7tcSqtmkJjCXw08M81BAJIJbAO0moEn7IzXqsb58YxroQ3lEZ dxdVqq/4X9ZCkbJW/1woIc5niwiXtNunSri0OckzLzOnbEsNHRWyOh95dG0iPmm3wqI3 nrOJlHgM8EBngZyt8TYOEhM0ewbKG2iqhb/sAL0PJoZl3BcssRua1pHIAB13jLIt21pd 7wHE9u6gNQ5KtJ3mylIibmvkShTucGftjClTAH09HxnLjiSctaHBFV6U3MgY9KEFQH45 5XB9IbO7yFFjxbxcE/ePp9Uq5QAc+MNXqVwqy+BHDPo7omeshK67P6bA4hD3OMi36wGt xYUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnmb/HVQBAFfRmnIriXglWyvDmCutWqqEUeoIL8LVICcnQe7OrYhIKU+j6G5EkeAvcdG8vZ X-Received: by 10.68.242.41 with SMTP id wn9mr23347721pbc.117.1433349963517; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.139] (wsip-70-184-93-199.ph.ph.cox.net. [70.184.93.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nb10sm1279742pdb.76.2015.06.03.09.46.01 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <556F2F48.80908@boundarydevices.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:46:00 -0700 From: Eric Nelson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Otavio Salvador , Ann Thornton , Lauren Post References: <1432803324-14497-1-git-send-email-s.christ@phytec.de> In-Reply-To: Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsl-eula-unpack: deploy Freescale EULA 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: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:46:05 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 > 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