From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:51:22 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC 14/15] foobar: create a fake proprietary package (testing only) In-Reply-To: <201201290950.27997.minimod@morethan.org> References: <1327849908-15588-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <1327849908-15588-15-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <201201290950.27997.minimod@morethan.org> Message-ID: <4F26843A.4080700@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Michael, Michael S. Zick wrote: > On Sun January 29 2012, Diego Iastrubni wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >>> > If this proposal or something like it is included in the build > system, then those firmware blob licenses could also be handled > with the new bit of infrastructure. Thanks for pointing out. I had a look at the linux-firmware module, and it raises some interesting points for discussion of the compliance stuff in general, as well as the implementation. Firstly, linux-firmware is a package composed of different parts with different licenses. This makes it hard for BR to handle the legal stuff for this package, as it should show a different set of licenses depending on which parts are actually used. This is not unique of linux-firmware though. binutils has as many as 9 license files in its sources. Second, I read a few random license files in linux-firmware and most of them are similar to BSD licenses, in that they require the license text to be included in the product documentation. This is why I did not implement the third goal of my RFC, "save the complete text of all license files that must be included in the product documentation". It would be far from trivial. In fact, in a case such as linux-firmare, it would be relatively easy to copy all the (many) license files, but it would be of limited usefulness. The best thing to do would be to copy only the license files for those parts of the package that are actually used in the product. I think there's no way to obtain such a feature without a manual work of the package's .mk creator. This work could probably be limited to packages with a non-obvious licensing scheme, though. Luca