| Message ID | 20260604-license-update-v1-1-16dad5e9b0a2@pbarker.dev |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | recipe-style-guide: Clarify when License-Update tag is needed | expand |
On Thu Jun 4, 2026 at 12:09 PM CEST, Paul Barker wrote: > 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> > --- > documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > index 79bf7c79b67b..d05a535784d9 100644 > --- a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > +++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > @@ -268,14 +268,17 @@ 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 an upstream license change, 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. By reading this alone I fail to see a use-case, could you provide an example? Perhaps a link to such a commit? (you can use :oecore_rev:`<commit sha>` to create the link). Thanks, Antonin
On Thu, 2026-06-04 at 12:14 +0200, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > On Thu Jun 4, 2026 at 12:09 PM CEST, Paul Barker wrote: > > 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> > > --- > > documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > > index 79bf7c79b67b..d05a535784d9 100644 > > --- a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > > +++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > > @@ -268,14 +268,17 @@ 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 an upstream license change, 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. > > By reading this alone I fail to see a use-case, could you provide an example? > Perhaps a link to such a commit? (you can use :oecore_rev:`<commit sha>` to > create the link). Hi Antonin, This was while discussing a series from Joshua [1] and follow-up patches from Richard. I can send a v2 shortly once the commits are merged to master and mirrors have updated, etc. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/openembedded-core/20260601181251.123019-1-JPEWhacker@gmail.com/ Best regards,
diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst index 79bf7c79b67b..d05a535784d9 100644 --- a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst +++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst @@ -268,14 +268,17 @@ 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 an upstream license change, 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. + Tips and Guidelines for Writing Recipes ---------------------------------------
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> --- documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- base-commit: d7376cca64a0784e59d4fd60b9baefb4da2ce289 change-id: 20260604-license-update-1ef504f8f2a5 Best regards, -- Paul Barker