From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:06:26 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 00/22] Automatically produce legal compliance info In-Reply-To: References: <1336421443-5871-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> Message-ID: <4FB53012.2070601@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, thanks for reviewing these patches. Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > Hi Luca, ... > I pulled from your branch and did some tests with it. Some observations: > > - If you start from a clean env without .config, the 'legal-info' > target does not exist. This is because it's in the 'have-config' > block. This may make sense, but it would be nice if this were noted > somewhere (the fact that you have to have a config first). I reworded the manual this way: > To make this easier for you, Buildroot can collect for you some material you > will probably need. To produce this material, after you configured Buildroot > with +make menuconfig+, +make xconfig+ or +make gconfig+, run: > - I then created a config, (either with a defconfig (I took pandaboard > as example) or by just starting 'make menuconfig' and immediately > saving) and executed 'make legal-info'. Now I got: > >>>> busybox 1.20.0 Downloading > /home/tdescham/repo/contrib/buildroot-import/dl/busybox-1.20.0.tar.bz2: > No such file or directory > /home/tdescham/repo/contrib/buildroot-import/dl/busybox-1.20.0.tar.bz2: > No such file or directory > make: *** [/home/tdescham/repo/contrib/buildroot-import/output/build/busybox-1.20.0/.stamp_downloaded] > Error 1 > > This was fixed by explicitly running 'make dirs'. I think then that > 'dirs' should be a prerequisite for the legal-info target. Fixed in v4. > > - After that I played a bit by adding legal info to busybox and see > how legal-info behaved. All was as expected, no comments here. > > - Then I tried specifying a proprietary package, and noticed that this > is case-sensitive PROPRIETARY. Although I understand that this is > easier, and I am not against keeping this, this fact was not mentioned > in the docs. In fact, the common license list in usage.txt does not > specify the PROPRIETARY license at all. I feel that we should mention > this possibility at least somewhere, either in that using.txt place, > or in the adding-packages-gentargets.txt file. I added this to the list of licenses in using.txt: -* +BSD-2c+: BSD 2-clause license. +* +BSD-2c+: BSD 2-clause license; +* +PROPRIETARY+: marks a non-opensource package; + Buildroot does not save any licensing info or source code for these packages. and this to adding-packages-gentargets.txt: * +LIBFOO_LICENSE+ defines the license (or licenses) under which the package is released. This name will appear in the manifest file produced by +make legal-info+. If the license is one of those listed in xref:legal-info[], use the same string to make the manifest file uniform. Otherwise, describe the license in a precise and concise way, avoiding ambiguous names such as +BSD+ which actually name a family of licenses. + If the root filesystem you generate contains non-opensource packages, you + can define their license as +PROPRIETARY+: Buildroot will not save any + licensing info or source code for this package. This variable is optional. If it is not defined, +unknown+ will appear in the +license+ field of the manifest file for this package. Luca