| Message ID | 20220523112433.383046-1-Martin.Jansa@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC] glibc-common.inc: add BSD-4-Clause-UC, BSD-3-Clause, ISC to LICENSE | expand |
On Mon, 2022-05-23 at 13:24 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > * the main motivation is to get rid of this bbappend from 2014: > https://github.com/openwebos/meta-webos/commit/8eb313e4303defbe495cf7f91974799046975fca > which unfortunately doesn't explain which files under BSD license are included > in which package and also uses ambiguous 'BSD' license which was > removed from oe-core's common-licenses in: > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?h=kirkstone&id=14d4c007c49652d836d325a12bdbcd3bfa42e6d5 > > * COPYING mentions only GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only as our LICENSE variable says, > , but the LICENSES files lists various licenses with various Copyright > holders, the ones I was able to figure out where: > BSD-4-Clause-UC (but with 3rd clause explicitly removed) > ISC > BSD-3-Clause (with Intel Corportion copyright) > BSD-3-Clause (with Oracle America copyright) > which have just small formatting changes compared to corresponding > license in common-licenses, but there are couple more, should we > list them all (and create new common-licenses if needed)? > > * there were only 7 changes in LICENSES file since 2002: > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=history;f=LICENSES;h=530893b1dc9ea00755603c68fb36bd4fc38a7be8;hb=HEAD > > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> > --- > meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc > index 90a6a534f3..7e3dc3b816 100644 > --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ SUMMARY = "GLIBC (GNU C Library)" > DESCRIPTION = "The GNU C Library is used as the system C library in most systems with the Linux kernel." > HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html" > SECTION = "libs" > -LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only" > +LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only & BSD-4-Clause-UC & BSD-3-Clause & ISC" > > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM ?= "file://LICENSES;md5=1541fd8f5e8f1579512bf05f533371ba \ > file://COPYING;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263 \ I don't mind updating this but I think we'd need to add something to LIC_FILES_CHKSUM to show where the context under BSD* is... Cheers, Richard
The LICENSES file is already in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM. Unfortunately the files themselves usually don't have clear license headers, but at least there is Copyright in them, so it might be possible to map the LICENSES files sections to actual source files (in cases where it's not explicitly mentioned) and then map these source files to package names and set the LICENSE:<pkg> to match. I was waiting for an agreement that this is really needed as BSD is quite permissive and it would be surprising if LGE was the only company which had to fix this LICENSE issue (in long forgotten bbappend from 2014), so maybe someone else have already better upstream-able change handy (and this e-mail would be just a reminder to upstream it - my over-optimistic self said). Cheers, On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 1:34 PM <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2022-05-23 at 13:24 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > * the main motivation is to get rid of this bbappend from 2014: > > > https://github.com/openwebos/meta-webos/commit/8eb313e4303defbe495cf7f91974799046975fca > > which unfortunately doesn't explain which files under BSD license are > included > > in which package and also uses ambiguous 'BSD' license which was > > removed from oe-core's common-licenses in: > > > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?h=kirkstone&id=14d4c007c49652d836d325a12bdbcd3bfa42e6d5 > > > > * COPYING mentions only GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only as our LICENSE > variable says, > > , but the LICENSES files lists various licenses with various Copyright > > holders, the ones I was able to figure out where: > > BSD-4-Clause-UC (but with 3rd clause explicitly removed) > > ISC > > BSD-3-Clause (with Intel Corportion copyright) > > BSD-3-Clause (with Oracle America copyright) > > which have just small formatting changes compared to corresponding > > license in common-licenses, but there are couple more, should we > > list them all (and create new common-licenses if needed)? > > > > * there were only 7 changes in LICENSES file since 2002: > > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=history;f=LICENSES;h=530893b1dc9ea00755603c68fb36bd4fc38a7be8;hb=HEAD > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> > > --- > > meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc > b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc > > index 90a6a534f3..7e3dc3b816 100644 > > --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc > > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc > > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ SUMMARY = "GLIBC (GNU C Library)" > > DESCRIPTION = "The GNU C Library is used as the system C library in > most systems with the Linux kernel." > > HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html" > > SECTION = "libs" > > -LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only" > > +LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only & BSD-4-Clause-UC & > BSD-3-Clause & ISC" > > > > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM ?= > "file://LICENSES;md5=1541fd8f5e8f1579512bf05f533371ba \ > > file://COPYING;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263 \ > > I don't mind updating this but I think we'd need to add something to > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM to show where the context under BSD* is... > > Cheers, > > Richard > > >
On Mon, 2022-05-23 at 13:43 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > The LICENSES file is already in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM. > > Unfortunately the files themselves usually don't have clear license > headers, but at least there is Copyright in them, so it might be > possible to map the LICENSES files sections to actual source files > (in cases where it's not explicitly mentioned) and then map these > source files to package names and set the LICENSE:<pkg> to match. > > I was waiting for an agreement that this is really needed as BSD is > quite permissive and it would be surprising if LGE was the only > company which had to fix this LICENSE issue (in long forgotten > bbappend from 2014), so maybe someone else have already better > upstream-able change handy (and this e-mail would be just a reminder > to upstream it - my over-optimistic self said). What I was meaning is for example the file inet/rcmd.c has an example of one of the difference licenses so we could add that to LIC_FILES_CHKSUM. Since LICENSES does cover them, I guess that isn't strictly needed and your patch is probably correct. Cheers, Richard
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 4:43 AM Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> wrote: > > The LICENSES file is already in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM. > > Unfortunately the files themselves usually don't have clear license headers, but at least there is Copyright in them, so it might be possible to map the LICENSES files sections to actual source files (in cases where it's not explicitly mentioned) and then map these source files to package names and set the LICENSE:<pkg> to match. > > I was waiting for an agreement that this is really needed as BSD is quite permissive and it would be surprising if LGE was the only company which had to fix this LICENSE issue (in long forgotten bbappend from 2014), so maybe someone else have already better upstream-able change handy (and this e-mail would be just a reminder to upstream it - my over-optimistic self said). > I think this improves accuracy of our license representation so this is a good improvement > Cheers, > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 1:34 PM <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2022-05-23 at 13:24 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> > * the main motivation is to get rid of this bbappend from 2014: >> > https://github.com/openwebos/meta-webos/commit/8eb313e4303defbe495cf7f91974799046975fca >> > which unfortunately doesn't explain which files under BSD license are included >> > in which package and also uses ambiguous 'BSD' license which was >> > removed from oe-core's common-licenses in: >> > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?h=kirkstone&id=14d4c007c49652d836d325a12bdbcd3bfa42e6d5 >> > >> > * COPYING mentions only GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only as our LICENSE variable says, >> > , but the LICENSES files lists various licenses with various Copyright >> > holders, the ones I was able to figure out where: >> > BSD-4-Clause-UC (but with 3rd clause explicitly removed) >> > ISC >> > BSD-3-Clause (with Intel Corportion copyright) >> > BSD-3-Clause (with Oracle America copyright) >> > which have just small formatting changes compared to corresponding >> > license in common-licenses, but there are couple more, should we >> > list them all (and create new common-licenses if needed)? >> > >> > * there were only 7 changes in LICENSES file since 2002: >> > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=history;f=LICENSES;h=530893b1dc9ea00755603c68fb36bd4fc38a7be8;hb=HEAD >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> >> > --- >> > meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc >> > index 90a6a534f3..7e3dc3b816 100644 >> > --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc >> > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc >> > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ SUMMARY = "GLIBC (GNU C Library)" >> > DESCRIPTION = "The GNU C Library is used as the system C library in most systems with the Linux kernel." >> > HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html" >> > SECTION = "libs" >> > -LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only" >> > +LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only & BSD-4-Clause-UC & BSD-3-Clause & ISC" >> > >> > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM ?= "file://LICENSES;md5=1541fd8f5e8f1579512bf05f533371ba \ >> > file://COPYING;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263 \ >> >> I don't mind updating this but I think we'd need to add something to >> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM to show where the context under BSD* is... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#166008): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/166008 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/91285771/1997914 > Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [raj.khem@gmail.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc index 90a6a534f3..7e3dc3b816 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ SUMMARY = "GLIBC (GNU C Library)" DESCRIPTION = "The GNU C Library is used as the system C library in most systems with the Linux kernel." HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html" SECTION = "libs" -LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only" +LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only & BSD-4-Clause-UC & BSD-3-Clause & ISC" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM ?= "file://LICENSES;md5=1541fd8f5e8f1579512bf05f533371ba \ file://COPYING;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263 \
* the main motivation is to get rid of this bbappend from 2014: https://github.com/openwebos/meta-webos/commit/8eb313e4303defbe495cf7f91974799046975fca which unfortunately doesn't explain which files under BSD license are included in which package and also uses ambiguous 'BSD' license which was removed from oe-core's common-licenses in: https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?h=kirkstone&id=14d4c007c49652d836d325a12bdbcd3bfa42e6d5 * COPYING mentions only GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-only as our LICENSE variable says, , but the LICENSES files lists various licenses with various Copyright holders, the ones I was able to figure out where: BSD-4-Clause-UC (but with 3rd clause explicitly removed) ISC BSD-3-Clause (with Intel Corportion copyright) BSD-3-Clause (with Oracle America copyright) which have just small formatting changes compared to corresponding license in common-licenses, but there are couple more, should we list them all (and create new common-licenses if needed)? * there were only 7 changes in LICENSES file since 2002: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=history;f=LICENSES;h=530893b1dc9ea00755603c68fb36bd4fc38a7be8;hb=HEAD Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> --- meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-common.inc | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)