Re: [OE-core] Missing Expat license (was: [PATCH 12/14] ffmpeg: update LICENSE)

["Peter Kjellerstedt" <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> Sent: den 16 september 2021 15:42
> To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> Cc: Ross Burton <ross@burtonini.com>; openembedded-
> core@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] Missing Expat license (was: [PATCH 12/14] ffmpeg:
> update LICENSE)
> 
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:15 AM Peter Kjellerstedt
> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: den 16 september 2021 01:06
> > > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> > > Cc: Ross Burton <ross@burtonini.com>; openembedded-
> > > core@lists.openembedded.org
> > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] Missing Expat license (was: [PATCH 12/14]
> ffmpeg:
> > > update LICENSE)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:26 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
> > > <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-
> > > > > core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Peter Kjellerstedt
> > > > > Sent: den 9 september 2021 21:54
> > > > > To: Ross Burton <ross@burtonini.com>; openembedded-
> > > > > core@lists.openembedded.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 12/14] ffmpeg: update LICENSE
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-
> > > > > > core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Ross Burton
> > > > > > Sent: den 3 september 2021 15:25
> > > > > > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > > > > > Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH 12/14] ffmpeg: update LICENSE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "BSD" is ambiguous, ffmpeg comprises of several licenses which
> are
> > > > > > BSD-like.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.4.bb | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.4.bb
> > > > > b/meta/recipes-
> > > > > > multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.4.bb
> > > > > > index e19077541ec..f822ba9ab78 100644
> > > > > > --- a/meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.4.bb
> > > > > > +++ b/meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.4.bb
> > > > > > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "FFmpeg is the leading multimedia
> > > framework,
> > > > > > able to decode, encod
> > > > > >  HOMEPAGE = "https://www.ffmpeg.org/"
> > > > > >  SECTION = "libs"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -LICENSE = "BSD & GPLv2+ & LGPLv2.1+ & MIT"
> > > > > > +LICENSE = "GPLv2+ & LGPLv2.1+ & ISC & Expat & BSD-2-Clause &
> BSD-3-
> > > Clause & IJG"
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no "Expat" license in neither meta/files/common-licenses
> nor
> > > > > in meta/conf/licenses.conf.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps adding it might be one way see
> > > https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
> > > SPDX seems to not have specific entry for it as it points to MIT there
> >
> > If "the expat license" is in fact MIT (hard to tell as there is no
> license
> > text in the ffmpeg sources), I do not see why we would need a special
> license
> > for it. All other recipes use "MIT" without creating a specific license
> file.
> > This includes the expat recipe itself, which use "MIT" as license.
> >
> 
> this here is a interesting take on it
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
> so it really is not MIT as per above

Well, that page does not seem to acknowledge the term "the MIT 
license", which the rest of us obviously do... So while they 
may call it the Expat license, the actual license text at 
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat is still ye goode 
olde MIT text.

> > > I think ptest package will contain vsynth2.yuv which is built using
> > > reference.pnm so technically
> > > we need to use Expat for ptest package.
> >
> > ffmpeg does not produce any ptest package AFAICT.
> 
> We will still have it. it in -src packages, if its not used then
> perhaps just delete this file.

It does not end up in ffmpeg-src (since it is a picture I presume and 
not a source file) nor anywhere else (I have searched through the 
packages-split directory after building ffmpeg with the "poky" distro, 
which, e.g., enables ptest by default).

//Peter

> > //Peter
> >
> > > > Ross, since you added the reference to the Expat license, did you
> plan
> > > on
> > > > actually adding it as well? It being missing breaks at least our
> license
> > > > handling. After writing this, I went digging in ffmpeg, and it seems
> > > that the
> > > > Expat license (only mentioned by name, there is no actual license
> text)
> > > is
> > > > only used for a test image (reference.pnm), which does not end up in
> any
> > > > package. So to me it seems as this does not need to be included in
> > > LICENSE.
> > > >
> > > > Also, given the long list of licenses that are now in LICENSE, what
> > > packages
> > > > are actually expected to use those licenses? AFAICT, all packages
> that
> > > are
> > > > explicitly listed in the recipe either use GPLv2+ or LGPLv2.1+. The
> > > default
> > > > licenses only seem to be used for, e.g., ffmpeg-dev, ffmpeg-dbg and
> > > > ffmpeg-doc, which seems weird.
> > > >
> > > > More weirdness, LIC_FILES_CHKSUM lists GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2 and
> LGPLv3,
> > > but
> > > > neither GPLv3 nor LGPLv3 are used in LICENSE. And there are no
> > > references for
> > > > any of the newly added licenses.
> > > >
> > > > > >  LICENSE:${PN} = "GPLv2+"
> > > > > >  LICENSE:libavcodec = "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG',
> 'gpl',
> > > 'GPLv2+', 'LGPLv2.1+', d)}"
> > > > > >  LICENSE:libavdevice = "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG',
> 'gpl',
> > > 'GPLv2+', 'LGPLv2.1+', d)}"
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > >
> > > > > //Peter
> > > >
> > > > //Peter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >