Re: [poky] libcdaudio license issue

[Saul Wold <saul.wold@intel.com>]

On 12/07/2010 01:23 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> Replying to 3 replies in this one
>
>
> 2010/12/7 Saul Wold<saul.wold@intel.com>:
>> On 12/06/2010 02:52 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 02:50:10PM -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/06/2010 11:48 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I was checking libcdaudio for LICENSE info.
>>>>> recipe says GPL
>>>>> COPYING file is the GPLv2 one
>>>>> README file says:
>>>>>
>>>>> libcdaudio is distributed under the GNU Library General Public
>>>>> License, included in this package under the top level source directory
>>>>> in the file COPYING
>>>>>
>>>>> C files also mention LGPL. but say v2 or later
>>>>>
>>>>> What to do with this in the LICENSE field? LGPLv2+ ?
>>>>>
>>>> This seems reasonable, you should also include the header chunk in the
>>>> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM, you can specify start and end lines for the checksum.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of this. Would you want to add all the header chunks
> that state this, or only e.g. the most important one (assuming such a
> file can be identified)
> I've seen the text in different files.
>

I would suggest the most important one as mostly those headers would be 
the same. Picking something like a common header file or the file that 
contains main() would make sense.

> Also is poky planning to take this recipe? If not, it is kind-a
> pointless for me to update it, so I'd rather waste time on something
> else :-)

At this point I think the work you are doing is valuable but better 
suited to live in a layer.  The core is really targeted to be as generic 
as possible to allow for a broad variety of devices.

Richard recently suggested that a repo be created for such meta layers. 
We are working out the details on creating and opening up that repo.

Sau!

>>>
>>> Saul,
>>>
>>> We don't have this feature in OpenEmbedded yet... But it would be nice to
>>> port
>>> it from Poky though! :)
>
> Note that adding/using  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM in OE should be harmless as
> it is a var, which is not used.
> So if we wnat to move into that dir we might consider keeping the
> field in the OE recipes (currently for libaudio it is not there)
>>>
>> Denys, sorry I saw this via my poky email and did not notice it was OE also,
>> I will what what I cross post next time!
>
> The recipe is also in OE and of course suffers from the same issue.
> That's why I posted to both lists.
>>
>> Glad to hear that you like the idea!  We will have all Poky recipes
>> checksummed this week!
>
> Cool!
>
> Frans
>