Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] util-linux: Improve the package licenses

[Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>]

Hi Peter,

On 6/3/25 12:07 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
>> Sent: den 3 juni 2025 11:27
>> To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] util-linux: Improve the package licenses
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 6/3/25 5:14 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>>> The default license for util-linux is GPL-2.0-or-later.
>>>
>>> Most of the applications and the libraries are also linked with
>>> libcommon.la, which uses these licenses:
>>> LGPL-2.1-or-later & BSD-2-Clause & BSD-3-Clause & MIT
>>>
>>> Set the above licenses for all dynamic packages, unless explicitly
>>> specified.
>>>
>>> In particular, this avoids setting BSD-4-Clause-UC and EUPL-1.2 on
>>> packages where they do not belong.
>>>
>>> License-Update: See above
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
>>> ---
>>>    meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc   | 41 ++++++++++++++++---
>>>    .../util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb             |  3 ++
>>>    2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc
>>> index b0f2a9d497..bd7ad10035 100644
>>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc
>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc
>>> @@ -6,14 +6,43 @@ disk partitioning, kernel message management, filesystem creation, and system lo
>>>
>>>    SECTION = "base"
>>>
>>> +# Most of the applications and the libraries are linked with libcommon.la,
>>> +# which uses these licenses
>>
>> Is this something we can detect directly within the binaries in a
>> package, so that we could simply add those licenses dynamically to
>> LICENSE:${PN}-x instead of having to list them by hand?
> 
> I doubt that is possible.
> 

Fair enough, was just a random thought I had :)

>> Packages without a package-specific LICENSE will take the recipe's
>> LICENSE I believe, considering that *.la is part of the -dev package
>> should the -dev package have a "more precise" license than the recipe's
>> default?
> 
> Sounds like a good idea. I'll send an updated patch.
> 

I don't know the content of the dev package, so maybe that isn't the 
best suggestion and the default would work fine?

After all, the LIBCOMMON_LICENSE is part of the recipe's LICENSE so it 
would be covered at the very least (albeit not necessarily proper).

Cheers,
Quentin