inconsistency with adding LICENSE lines to images

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>]

  just noticed the following ... in OE image definition files under
recipes-core:

core-image-base.bb
core-image-minimal.bb
core-image-minimal-dev.bb
core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
core-image-minimal-mtdutils.bb

it *seems* to make sense that image definitions that require or
include other core image bb files don't need to add the line:

LICENSE = "MIT"

as they pick it up from the include'd or require'd file, but image
recipe files that

inherit core-image

*do* need to define their own license.

  but if one then goes under recipes-extended/images, it looks a bit
strange as, for example, here's core-image-full-cmdline.bb:

DESCRIPTION = "A console-only image with more full-featured Linux system \
functionality installed."

IMAGE_FEATURES += "splash ssh-server-openssh"

IMAGE_INSTALL = "\
    packagegroup-core-boot \
    packagegroup-core-full-cmdline \
    ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
    "

inherit core-image

  so ... what's the licensing there? this image inherits directly from
core-image, but doesn't define a license? am i misunderstanding the
need for a license?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================