| Message ID | 20250603031425.2206714-1-pkj@axis.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | util-linux: Improve the package licenses | expand |
Hi Peter, On 6/3/25 5:14 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > The default license for util-linux is GPL-2.0-or-later. > > Most of the applications and the libraries are also linked with > libcommon.la, which uses these licenses: > LGPL-2.1-or-later & BSD-2-Clause & BSD-3-Clause & MIT > > Set the above licenses for all dynamic packages, unless explicitly > specified. > > In particular, this avoids setting BSD-4-Clause-UC and EUPL-1.2 on > packages where they do not belong. > > License-Update: See above > Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> > --- > meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc | 41 ++++++++++++++++--- > .../util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb | 3 ++ > 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > index b0f2a9d497..bd7ad10035 100644 > --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > @@ -6,14 +6,43 @@ disk partitioning, kernel message management, filesystem creation, and system lo > > SECTION = "base" > > +# Most of the applications and the libraries are linked with libcommon.la, > +# which uses these licenses Is this something we can detect directly within the binaries in a package, so that we could simply add those licenses dynamically to LICENSE:${PN}-x instead of having to list them by hand? Packages without a package-specific LICENSE will take the recipe's LICENSE I believe, considering that *.la is part of the -dev package should the -dev package have a "more precise" license than the recipe's default? Cheers, Quentin
> -----Original Message----- > From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de> > Sent: den 3 juni 2025 11:27 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] util-linux: Improve the package licenses > > Hi Peter, > > On 6/3/25 5:14 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > The default license for util-linux is GPL-2.0-or-later. > > > > Most of the applications and the libraries are also linked with > > libcommon.la, which uses these licenses: > > LGPL-2.1-or-later & BSD-2-Clause & BSD-3-Clause & MIT > > > > Set the above licenses for all dynamic packages, unless explicitly > > specified. > > > > In particular, this avoids setting BSD-4-Clause-UC and EUPL-1.2 on > > packages where they do not belong. > > > > License-Update: See above > > Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> > > --- > > meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc | 41 ++++++++++++++++--- > > .../util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb | 3 ++ > > 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > > index b0f2a9d497..bd7ad10035 100644 > > --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > > @@ -6,14 +6,43 @@ disk partitioning, kernel message management, filesystem creation, and system lo > > > > SECTION = "base" > > > > +# Most of the applications and the libraries are linked with libcommon.la, > > +# which uses these licenses > > Is this something we can detect directly within the binaries in a > package, so that we could simply add those licenses dynamically to > LICENSE:${PN}-x instead of having to list them by hand? I doubt that is possible. > Packages without a package-specific LICENSE will take the recipe's > LICENSE I believe, considering that *.la is part of the -dev package > should the -dev package have a "more precise" license than the recipe's > default? Sounds like a good idea. I'll send an updated patch. > > Cheers, > Quentin //Peter
Hi Peter, On 6/3/25 12:07 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de> >> Sent: den 3 juni 2025 11:27 >> To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] util-linux: Improve the package licenses >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> On 6/3/25 5:14 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt via lists.openembedded.org wrote: >>> The default license for util-linux is GPL-2.0-or-later. >>> >>> Most of the applications and the libraries are also linked with >>> libcommon.la, which uses these licenses: >>> LGPL-2.1-or-later & BSD-2-Clause & BSD-3-Clause & MIT >>> >>> Set the above licenses for all dynamic packages, unless explicitly >>> specified. >>> >>> In particular, this avoids setting BSD-4-Clause-UC and EUPL-1.2 on >>> packages where they do not belong. >>> >>> License-Update: See above >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> >>> --- >>> meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc | 41 ++++++++++++++++--- >>> .../util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb | 3 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc >>> index b0f2a9d497..bd7ad10035 100644 >>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc >>> @@ -6,14 +6,43 @@ disk partitioning, kernel message management, filesystem creation, and system lo >>> >>> SECTION = "base" >>> >>> +# Most of the applications and the libraries are linked with libcommon.la, >>> +# which uses these licenses >> >> Is this something we can detect directly within the binaries in a >> package, so that we could simply add those licenses dynamically to >> LICENSE:${PN}-x instead of having to list them by hand? > > I doubt that is possible. > Fair enough, was just a random thought I had :) >> Packages without a package-specific LICENSE will take the recipe's >> LICENSE I believe, considering that *.la is part of the -dev package >> should the -dev package have a "more precise" license than the recipe's >> default? > > Sounds like a good idea. I'll send an updated patch. > I don't know the content of the dev package, so maybe that isn't the best suggestion and the default would work fine? After all, the LIBCOMMON_LICENSE is part of the recipe's LICENSE so it would be covered at the very least (albeit not necessarily proper). Cheers, Quentin
> -----Original Message----- > From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de> > Sent: den 3 juni 2025 12:12 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] util-linux: Improve the package licenses > > Hi Peter, > > On 6/3/25 12:07 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de> > >> Sent: den 3 juni 2025 11:27 > >> To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] util-linux: Improve the package licenses > >> > >> Hi Peter, > >> > >> On 6/3/25 5:14 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > >>> The default license for util-linux is GPL-2.0-or-later. > >>> > >>> Most of the applications and the libraries are also linked with > >>> libcommon.la, which uses these licenses: > >>> LGPL-2.1-or-later & BSD-2-Clause & BSD-3-Clause & MIT > >>> > >>> Set the above licenses for all dynamic packages, unless explicitly > >>> specified. > >>> > >>> In particular, this avoids setting BSD-4-Clause-UC and EUPL-1.2 on > >>> packages where they do not belong. > >>> > >>> License-Update: See above > >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> > >>> --- > >>> meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc | 41 ++++++++++++++++--- > >>> .../util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb | 3 ++ > >>> 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > >>> index b0f2a9d497..bd7ad10035 100644 > >>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc > >>> @@ -6,14 +6,43 @@ disk partitioning, kernel message management, filesystem creation, and system lo > >>> > >>> SECTION = "base" > >>> > >>> +# Most of the applications and the libraries are linked with libcommon.la, > >>> +# which uses these licenses > >> > >> Is this something we can detect directly within the binaries in a > >> package, so that we could simply add those licenses dynamically to > >> LICENSE:${PN}-x instead of having to list them by hand? > > > > I doubt that is possible. > > Fair enough, was just a random thought I had :) > > >> Packages without a package-specific LICENSE will take the recipe's > >> LICENSE I believe, considering that *.la is part of the -dev package > >> should the -dev package have a "more precise" license than the recipe's > >> default? > > > > Sounds like a good idea. I'll send an updated patch. > > I don't know the content of the dev package, so maybe that isn't the > best suggestion and the default would work fine? It only contains stuff related to the libraries that util-linux provides so it seems reasonable to set its license to ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSE}. > > After all, the LIBCOMMON_LICENSE is part of the recipe's LICENSE so it > would be covered at the very least (albeit not necessarily proper). The problem is when some irrelevant licenses are set and those licenses are "problematic", such as BSD-4-Clause. At least for us that means we have to go through extra hoops if we want to include such a package in an image. Thus having the licenses as correct as possible helps a lot. Now, we don't include -dev packages in our images, but still, it does not hurt. > > Cheers, > Quentin //Peter
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc index b0f2a9d497..bd7ad10035 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc @@ -6,14 +6,43 @@ disk partitioning, kernel message management, filesystem creation, and system lo SECTION = "base" +# Most of the applications and the libraries are linked with libcommon.la, +# which uses these licenses +LIBCOMMON_LICENSES = "LGPL-2.1-or-later & BSD-2-Clause & BSD-3-Clause & MIT" + +# The default license is GPL-2.0-or-later +DEFAULT_LICENSES = "GPL-2.0-or-later & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" + LICENSE = "GPL-1.0-or-later & GPL-2.0-only & GPL-2.0-or-later & LGPL-2.1-or-later & BSD-2-Clause & BSD-3-Clause & BSD-4-Clause-UC & MIT & EUPL-1.2" +# All dynamic packages use ${DEFAULT_LICENSES} with the following exceptions +LICENSE:${PN}-cal = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-col = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-colcrt = "BSD-4-Clause-UC" +LICENSE:${PN}-colrm = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-column = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-coresched = "EUPL-1.2 & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" LICENSE:${PN}-fcntl-lock = "MIT" -LICENSE:${PN}-fdisk = "GPL-1.0-or-later" -LICENSE:${PN}-libblkid = "LGPL-2.1-or-later" -LICENSE:${PN}-libfdisk = "LGPL-2.1-or-later" -LICENSE:${PN}-libmount = "LGPL-2.1-or-later" -LICENSE:${PN}-libsmartcols = "LGPL-2.1-or-later" -LICENSE:${PN}-coresched = "EUPL-1.2" +LICENSE:${PN}-fdisk = "GPL-1.0-or-later & ${DEFAULT_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-fsfreeze = "GPL-1.0-or-later" +LICENSE:${PN}-hexdump = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-kill = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-libblkid = "${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-libfdisk = "${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-libmount = "${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-libsmartcols = "${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-logger = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-look = "BSD-4-Clause-UC" +LICENSE:${PN}-lscpu = "GPL-2.0-only & ${DEFAULT_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-mesg = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-nsenter = "GPL-2.0-only & ${DEFAULT_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-renice = "BSD-4-Clause-UC" +LICENSE:${PN}-rev = "BSD-4-Clause-UC" +LICENSE:${PN}-script = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-ul = "BSD-4-Clause-UC" +LICENSE:${PN}-vipw = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${DEFAULT_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-wall = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-whereis = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" +LICENSE:${PN}-write = "BSD-4-Clause-UC & ${LIBCOMMON_LICENSES}" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://README.licensing;md5=55e895a80bdd4ffc65e167a76d2e7569 \ file://COPYING;md5=b234ee4d69f5fce4486a80fdaf4a4263 \ diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb index 00036e8a68..6cc7708e06 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb @@ -11,6 +11,9 @@ python util_linux_binpackages () { pn = d.getVar('PN') d.appendVar('RRECOMMENDS:%s' % pn, ' %s' % pkg) + if not d.getVar('LICENSE:' + pkg): + d.setVar('LICENSE:' + pkg, '${DEFAULT_LICENSES}') + if d.getVar('ALTERNATIVE:' + pkg): return if d.getVarFlag('ALTERNATIVE_LINK_NAME', modulename):
The default license for util-linux is GPL-2.0-or-later. Most of the applications and the libraries are also linked with libcommon.la, which uses these licenses: LGPL-2.1-or-later & BSD-2-Clause & BSD-3-Clause & MIT Set the above licenses for all dynamic packages, unless explicitly specified. In particular, this avoids setting BSD-4-Clause-UC and EUPL-1.2 on packages where they do not belong. License-Update: See above Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> --- meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc | 41 ++++++++++++++++--- .../util-linux/util-linux_2.41.bb | 3 ++ 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)