On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 13:16 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > This is related to a similar problem we are seeing with the use of > “or” for licenses. We use the archiver.bbclass to export all open > source code we use. However, for recipes that specify multiple > licenses using “or”, we would like to specify the one under which we > are using the code. E.g., if the LICENSE is “GPL-2.0 | Proprietary”, > we would like to treat the code as “Proprietary”, but when it comes > to the archiver.bbclass, even if we have told it to ignore packages > with Proprietary licenses, it will include the package due to the > alternative GPL-2.0 license. > > The idea we have is to allow to specify a USED_LICENSE (e.g., in a > bbappend or a separate configuration file), which should take the > actually used license. This should be verified to be one of the > allowed licenses specified in LICENSE (in case LICENSE changes and no > longer allows the chosen license), and after that, LICENSE should be > treated as if this was the value it had been given. This does, > however, not take into account the use of the same package in > multiple images with different licensing requirements (we only build > one image so that is not a problem for us).
Just thinking out loud you could have something like a gplv3-license-incompatible.inc: LICENSE_pn-<some-recipe> = "MIT" LICENSE_pn-<some--other-recipe> = "GPLv2" INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv3" i.e. just force the license of a set of recipes to values known to work with GPLv3 exclusion? Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
