[yocto] Yet another LIC_FILES_CHKSUM question

[Flanagan, Elizabeth]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Hans Beckérus <hans.beckerus at gmail.com> wrote:
> In what way does LIC_FILES_CHKSUM correlate to what is specified in LICENSE?
> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM *must* be specified unless LICENSE is set to CLOSED.
> But, what if the package does not itself provide a license type file?
> Is it then ok to simply leave LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "" ?

That's kind of a tricky situation. I'm not a lawyer, but I haven't
actually seen an actual instance where there was a stated open source
license that wasn't also in the source. If there is then the correct
path is to probably put actual license text in the upstream as I can
imagine all sorts of legal issues with this. Any lawyers care to field
this on?

-b

> Also, I could see that there was an Erlang Public License file
> available in poky. But the file is named ErlPL-1.1 and there were no
> maps attached to it, this patch will add that.
>
> Hans
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/licenses.conf b/meta/conf/licenses.conf
> index 3cb143c..ffed997 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/licenses.conf
> +++ b/meta/conf/licenses.conf
> @@ -101,9 +101,14 @@ SPDXLICENSEMAP[AFL-1] = "AFL-1.2"
>  SPDXLICENSEMAP[AFLv2] = "AFL-2.0"
>  SPDXLICENSEMAP[AFLv1] = "AFL-1.2"
>
> +#Erlang variations
> +SPDXLICENSEMAP[ErlPLv1.1] = "ErlPL-1.1"
> +SPDXLICENSEMAP[ErlPL1.1] = "ErlPL-1.1"
> +
>  #Other variations
>  SPDXLICENSEMAP[EPLv1.0] = "EPL-1.0"
>
> +
>  # Additional license directories. Add your custom licenses
> directories this path.
>  # LICENSE_PATH += "${COREBASE}/custom-licenses"
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto



-- 
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release