From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:35:24 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 04/21 RFC] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info In-Reply-To: <20151117122226.0cbd8042@free-electrons.com> References: <5d993adab02ed57f67d14652247fbd31aaae87bc.1447713615.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20151117122226.0cbd8042@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <564B655C.5060105@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas, Yann, All, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Yann, Luca, > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:46:59 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: >> It might be necessary to not even mention a package in the output of >> legal-info: >> >> - virtual package have virtually nothing to save in the legal-info >> output; >> >> - for Buildroot itself, host-gcc-initial and host-gcc-final are not >> real packages, they are just two different steps of the same >> package, gcc; >> >> - for proprietary packages, it might not even be legal to even mention >> them, being under NDA or some other such restrictive conditions. >> >> Add the new 'IGNORE' keyword to the _REDISTRIBUTE package variable, so >> that the legal-info infra will simply completely ignore that package. >> >> Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" >> Cc: Luca Ceresoli > > I understand the idea, but I'm not a big fan of a boolean variable that > is no longer a boolean variable. > > So, let me question the current handling of _REDISTRIBUTE = NO. > Does it make sense to mention such packages in the legal-info output, > since their source code is not saved anyway? > > Shouldn't we simply change the behavior of _REDISTRIBUTE = NO to > be that such packages are not listed at all in the legal-info output, > which would match what you're looking for for with this "IGNORE" thing ? > > Luca, do you see any drawback in completely omitting REDISTRIBUTE = NO > packages from legal-info ? Indeed I think we need that behaviour for some binary-only packages. imx-vpu looks like a good example. Its COPYING file contains the following clause: > 3.4. You must reproduce any and all of Freescale's (or its third > party licensor's) copyright notices and other proprietary legends on copies of > Licensed Software. To the best of my understanding this means we must mention the package and its legal wording in legal-info. Thus your proposed change of meaning for REDISTRIBUTE = NO is probably not doable. How about changing the entire REDISTRIBUTE meaning from a boolean to an enumerative? Values would be: - ALL: equals current YES - METADATA: equals current NO, produces no tarball - NOTHING: equals Yann's IGNORE - YES: deprecated, for backward compatibility - NO: deprecated, for backward compatibility In other words, change the meaning of REDISTRIBUTE from "do you want to redistribute the tarball?" to "what do you want to redistribute?". -- Luca