[PATCH v3] recipe-style-guide: Clarify when License-Update tag is needed

[Paul Barker <paul@pbarker.dev>]

As discussed in a patch review call, we don't need License-Update tags
in commits where the upstream license has not changed, and we are
instead changing the LICENSE variable to fix incorrect data.

Signed-off-by: Paul Barker <paul@pbarker.dev>
---
Changes in v3:
- Improve wording as suggested by Alex.
- Link to v2: https://patch.msgid.link/20260607-license-update-v2-1-877d92a588e0@pbarker.dev

Changes in v2:
- Link to an example commit as requested by Antonin.
---
 documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst | 9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst
index e5b77393f082..f81ffb2abc55 100644
--- a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst
+++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst
@@ -268,14 +268,19 @@ License Updates
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 When you change the :term:`LICENSE` or :term:`LIC_FILES_CHKSUM` in the recipe
-you need to briefly explain the reason for the change via a ``License-Update:``
-tag.  Often it's quite trivial, such as::
+due to upstream making modifications to the license files, you need to briefly
+explain the reason for the change via a ``License-Update:`` tag. Often it's
+quite trivial, such as::
 
     License-Update: copyright years refreshed
 
 Less often, the actual licensing terms themselves will have changed.  If so, do
 try to link to upstream making/justifying that decision.
 
+The ``License-Update:`` tag is not needed for commits which fix incorrect
+license data in our metadata (for an example see OE-Core commit
+:oecore_rev:`6c8b76d240d2457578a58787121bc5873d724ee2`).
+
 Tips and Guidelines for Writing Recipes
 ---------------------------------------
 

---
base-commit: 4562ba19f36e54099bcae82cec8a70deb1c23aa7
change-id: 20260604-license-update-1ef504f8f2a5

Best regards,
--  
Paul Barker