From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rahul Bedarkar <Rahul.Bedarkar@imgtec.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 20:00:31 +0530
Subject: [Buildroot] Standardizing format for specifying license(s)
In-Reply-To: <20160115144437.2d843ae1@free-electrons.com>
References: <5698DDBE.3000402@imgtec.com>
 <20160115144437.2d843ae1@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <56990287.7050409@imgtec.com>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Hi Thomas,

On Friday 15 January 2016 07:14 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Rahul,
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:23:34 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote:
>
>> In package.mk, as of now, there is no standard format for specifying
>> licenses under which package is released. In some cases we comma
>> separate licenses while in others space separated list. It's difficult
>> to parse manifest file generated by legal-info target in such cases. One
>> of requirements of parsing manifest file would be checking for license
>> compatibility of dependent packages.
>
> Makes sense. If you want to formalize the format for the <pkg>_LICENSE
> variable, then what I would suggest is that you submit some patches
> against the Buildroot manual, which is the ultimate reference for such
> things. Then we can comment on the patch itself, and progressively
> agree on defining the appropriate format, in a way that can directly be
> merged into the documentation once a consensus has been reached.
>

OK. I will send patch against manual.

>> * If package is dual licensed e.g. dbus then slash separate licenses.
>> e.g. DBUS_LICENSE = AFLv2.1 / GPLv2+
>
> We normally use "or" in this case:
>
> CPPDB_LICENSE = Boost-v1.0 or MIT
> GNU_EFI_LICENSE = BSD-3c and/or GPLv2+ (gnuefi), BSD-3c (efilib)
> LIBICAL_LICENSE = MPLv1.0 or LGPLv2.1
>
> etc.
>
> To me, using a "or" makes it really explicit, much more than a "/".
>

Yes. Agree.

>> There was effort to comma separate licenses
>> https://git.busybox.net/buildroot/log/?qt=grep&q=comma+separate+licenses
>> but just comma separating licenses in many cases is not correct from
>> point of different licensing terms and parsing manifest file.
>
> Why ? This effort done by Gustavo was only to replace cases where
> different parts of the package are covered by different licenses, and
> the changes done by Gustavo completely match point (1) of your specific
> above.

Yes, it matches with point (1). I think one exception is dbus which has 
licenses comma separated but it's dual licensed.

Overall it looks like, what I am proposing is already in place but there 
are some non conforming packages and it's not documented.

Regards,
Rahul