From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L5IVU-0006dq-Qz for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:24:32 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1L5ISa-0002Lp-8i for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:21:32 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:21:32 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:21:32 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:21:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200811252242.05674.openembedded@haerwu.biz> <200811261011.09918.openembedded@haerwu.biz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b2pre) Gecko/20081120 Shredder/3.0b1pre In-Reply-To: <200811261011.09918.openembedded@haerwu.biz> Sender: news Subject: Re: [RFC] LICENSE fields and packages X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:24:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 26-11-08 10:11, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > Tuesday 25 of November 2008 22:57:27 Koen Kooi napisał(a): >> On 25-11-08 22:42, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: >>> Tuesday 25 of November 2008 22:02:00 Koen Kooi napisał(a): > >>>> The concrete problem I have is that I have a bunch of licenses >>>> that don't have a name (not even inside the company that wrote >>>> them), so my recipes have things like >>>> >>>> LICENSE = "proprietary binary" >>>> LICENSE = "evil binary" >>> So add license.txt into /usr/share/doc/${PN}/ with content of that >>> package license. I have done few such packages during last year as >>> some copyright holders gave permissions to distribute their stuff >>> *ONLY* with attached license. This kind of stuff does not even need >>> nothing new - it is just another file in SRC_URI. > >> I like that idea very much, but the license file will have to be in >> every entry in PACKAGES, so ${PN} won't work. Do you have a >> suggestion on how to handle that? > > ${PN}-license package on which all entries from PACKAGES will RDEPEND? Any objections to doing it this way till we have a proper bbclass? regards, Koen > >>>> So as short term solution I'd like to be able to point to a url >>>> for the 'licenses without a proper name' >>> Yeah.. especially when license contents is available only in >>> restricted area for which simple person can not get access (for >>> example Marvell extranet). If there are packages which have own >>> license then such license should be inside of package. >> So you agree that in those situations we can point to an URL, but in >> other cases either use the name or include it in the package? > > No, I mean that if license is not one of popular ones covered by > base-files-doc or common-licenses package it should be added into OE > metadata. Ok, it can be a bit of overkill adding all those 'povray', > 'openssl' etc licenses but when we will end then it will be clear how > each recipe is licensed. > > Regards,