> -----Original Message----- > From: openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded- > core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Richard Purdie > Sent: den 26 juli 2018 18:14 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerst...@axis.com>; Jonathan Haigh > <jonathan.ha...@arm.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > Cc: Jeremy Johnson <jeremy.john...@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [oe-core] INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE mechanism > > 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
Yes, I know. However, the idea with USED_LICENSE was the validation, that it contains one of the allowed licenses listed in LICENSE. I.e., if LICENSE is changed and the USED_LICENSE no longer validates, then there would be a build error. Without this, if we set LICENSE as per above, and the actual licensing changes, there is a great risk that we do not notice this and continues to use the code as per the old license. //Peter -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
