[Buildroot] [PATCH v4] package/exiv2: cleanup options and licenses

[Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>]

Arnout, All,

On 2019-06-06 20:48 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
> On 06/06/2019 17:15, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> >>  That said, it doesn't really hurt to have a legacy entry, so let's add it after
> >> all.
> > We did not add such a legacy entry for the Qt5 license drop, there is no
> > reason to add one here either.
> 
>  For qt5, there was no Config.in option to which we could apply legacy. There
> was only the inverse (BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE_LICENSE_APPROVED) so we'd have to
> trigger legacy in case that option was *not* enabled, which isn't possible.

Indeed, because the logic was the inverse than for exiv2.

>  I repeat: it doesn't hurt to add a legacy entry, and it may help someone who
> thought that they could use the Buildroot exiv2 package for the thing for which
> they had a commercial license.

Sorry, I do disagree vehemently. ;-)

It is not because it is easy to do that we should do it.

With your reasoning, we would have to add legacy options for each and
every package for which the license changes when we update it. This is
definitely not something we want to do. I don't see why this case would
need a specail treatment.

I repeat: if people *are* concerned about the licensing of their
products (and they should be concerned), then they should rely on
legal-info or show-info to validate their assumptions about the code
they compile.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'