Patchwork [2/2] iceauth: Add `LICENSE = "MIT-X"`

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Paul Menzel
Date July 29, 2011, 7:01 p.m.
Message ID <1311966065.3882.90.camel@mattotaupa>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/8873/
State New, archived
Headers show

Comments

Paul Menzel - July 29, 2011, 7:01 p.m.
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:47:22 +0200

This license is listed online for example at the Web site of XFree86 [1], Debian [2]. No name of the license is mentioned there. Gentoo just uses »MIT« [3].

There are some packages in OpenEmbedded using `MIT-X` and I guess they refer to the same license. I prefer »X/MIT« derived from the chapter name of [1] »MIT/X Licenses«.

[1] http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE5.html
[2] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/x11-xserver-utils/x11-xserver-utils_7.6+3/x11-xserver-utils.copyright
[3] http://gpo.zugaina.org/x11-apps/iceauth/euscan

Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
---
I do not know anything about license names and just checked the WWW. It would be great if the OE crowd could decide on one name and use it consistently.
---
 recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Elizabeth Flanagan - July 29, 2011, 8:38 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Paul Menzel
<paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:47:22 +0200
>
> This license is listed online for example at the Web site of XFree86 [1], Debian [2]. No name of the license is mentioned there. Gentoo just uses »MIT« [3].
>
> There are some packages in OpenEmbedded using `MIT-X` and I guess they refer to the same license. I prefer »X/MIT« derived from the chapter name of [1] »MIT/X Licenses«.

The LICENSE field generally has a few requirements to work correctly
for license.bbclass. One, it should be python-esque to parse
correctly. Two, it should use one of two standards. If you look in
meta/files/common-licenses you'll see a list of license text from
SPDX. If you look in license.bbclass, you'll also see a bunch of
mappings for backwards compatability:

SPDXLICENSEMAP[MIT-X] = "MIT"

LICENSE should use either the file name in common-licenses, or, the
mapping. In this case, we have the mapping for LICENSE, so MIT-X is
perfectly valid.

-b

>
> [1] http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE5.html
> [2] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/x11-xserver-utils/x11-xserver-utils_7.6+3/x11-xserver-utils.copyright
> [3] http://gpo.zugaina.org/x11-apps/iceauth/euscan
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
> ---
> I do not know anything about license names and just checked the WWW. It would be great if the OE crowd could decide on one name and use it consistently.

Agreed.

> ---
>  recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb |    3 ++-
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb b/recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb
> index e3b465f..bef5afb 100644
> --- a/recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb
> +++ b/recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb
> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>  DESCRIPTION = "Tool for manipulating ICE protocol authorization records"
> +LICENSE = "MIT-X"
>  DEPENDS += "libice"
>  PE = "1"
> -PR = "${INC_PR}.1"
> +PR = "${INC_PR}.2"
>
>  require xorg-app-common.inc
>
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
>
Andreas Müller - July 29, 2011, 8:48 p.m.
On Friday, July 29, 2011 09:01:05 PM Paul Menzel wrote:
> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:47:22 +0200
> 
> This license is listed online for example at the Web site of XFree86 [1],
> Debian [2]. No name of the license is mentioned there. Gentoo just uses
> »MIT« [3].
> 
> There are some packages in OpenEmbedded using `MIT-X` and I guess they
> refer to the same license. I prefer »X/MIT« derived from the chapter name
> of [1] »MIT/X Licenses«.
> 
> [1] http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE5.html
> [2]
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/x11-xserver-utils/x11-xs
> erver-utils_7.6+3/x11-xserver-utils.copyright [3]
> http://gpo.zugaina.org/x11-apps/iceauth/euscan
oe-core seems to prefer MIT too [1]. iceauth license looks same but appends 
additional sentence. So if no objections I will coose MIT in next version of 
patch for meta-oe.

Andreas

[1] http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-
core/tree/meta/files/common-licenses/MIT
Paul Menzel - July 29, 2011, 9:05 p.m.
Am Freitag, den 29.07.2011, 22:48 +0200 schrieb Andreas Mueller:
> On Friday, July 29, 2011 09:01:05 PM Paul Menzel wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:47:22 +0200
> > 
> > This license is listed online for example at the Web site of XFree86 [1],
> > Debian [2]. No name of the license is mentioned there. Gentoo just uses
> > »MIT« [3].
> > 
> > There are some packages in OpenEmbedded using `MIT-X` and I guess they
> > refer to the same license. I prefer »X/MIT« derived from the chapter name
> > of [1] »MIT/X Licenses«.
> > 
> > [1] http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE5.html
> > [2]
> > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/x11-xserver-utils/x11-xs
> > erver-utils_7.6+3/x11-xserver-utils.copyright [3]
> > http://gpo.zugaina.org/x11-apps/iceauth/euscan
> oe-core seems to prefer MIT too [1].

They named the file name MIT. But a lot of `xorg*` packages seem to use
`MIT-X`, especially `xorg-app/xorg-app-common.inc`.

        $ git grep MIT-X
        meta/classes/license.bbclass:SPDXLICENSEMAP[MIT-X] = "MIT"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xcb/libxcb.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xcb/xcb-proto.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-app/xorg-app-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-driver/xf86-driver-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-driver/xf86-video-omapfb_git.bb:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-font/xorg-font-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-lib/xorg-lib-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-proto/xorg-proto-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-util/xorg-util-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-xserver/xserver-xf86-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
        meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-xserver/xserver-xf86-config_0.1.bb:LICENSE = "MIT-X"

So is this patch superfluous, because `LICENSE` is defined in the
include file?

Regarding the name, in oe.dev most other recipes from The Open Group
have `LICENSE = "MIT"`.

Is it useful to set `LICENSE` in an include file? We should decide that
first.

> iceauth license looks same but appends additional sentence.

Actually the wording is quite different besides the capitalized
paragraph.

> So if no objections I will coose MIT in next version of patch for
> meta-oe.

It is even inconsistent in oe-core, so I really do not care much. But
first the question above needs to be answered.

And Andreas, you could wait until I update the recipe in oe.dev and just
copy it then to save you some time.


Thanks,

Paul


> [1] http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core/tree/meta/files/common-licenses/MIT
Paul Menzel - July 29, 2011, 9:09 p.m.
Am Freitag, den 29.07.2011, 13:38 -0700 schrieb Flanagan, Elizabeth:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:47:22 +0200
> >
> > This license is listed online for example at the Web site of XFree86 [1], Debian [2]. No name of the license is mentioned there. Gentoo just uses »MIT« [3].
> >
> > There are some packages in OpenEmbedded using `MIT-X` and I guess they refer to the same license. I prefer »X/MIT« derived from the chapter name of [1] »MIT/X Licenses«.
> 
> The LICENSE field generally has a few requirements to work correctly
> for license.bbclass. One, it should be python-esque to parse
> correctly. Two, it should use one of two standards. If you look in
> meta/files/common-licenses you'll see a list of license text from
> SPDX. If you look in license.bbclass, you'll also see a bunch of
> mappings for backwards compatability:
> 
> SPDXLICENSEMAP[MIT-X] = "MIT"
> 
> LICENSE should use either the file name in common-licenses, or, the
> mapping. In this case, we have the mapping for LICENSE, so MIT-X is
> perfectly valid.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

> > [1] http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE5.html
> > [2] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/x11-xserver-utils/x11-xserver-utils_7.6+3/x11-xserver-utils.copyright
> > [3] http://gpo.zugaina.org/x11-apps/iceauth/euscan
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
> > ---
> > I do not know anything about license names and just checked the WWW. It would be great if the OE crowd could decide on one name and use it consistently.
> 
> Agreed.

As replied to Andreas, oe-core also seems to use that inconsistently –
just from a style point of course. It would be great to get your opinion
on the other issue like licenses in include files too.

[…]


Thanks,

Paul
Andreas Müller - July 29, 2011, 9:13 p.m.
On Friday, July 29, 2011 11:05:24 PM Paul Menzel wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 29.07.2011, 22:48 +0200 schrieb Andreas Mueller:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2011 09:01:05 PM Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:47:22 +0200
> > > 
> > > This license is listed online for example at the Web site of XFree86
> > > [1], Debian [2]. No name of the license is mentioned there. Gentoo
> > > just uses »MIT« [3].
> > > 
> > > There are some packages in OpenEmbedded using `MIT-X` and I guess they
> > > refer to the same license. I prefer »X/MIT« derived from the chapter
> > > name of [1] »MIT/X Licenses«.
> > > 
> > > [1] http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE5.html
> > > [2]
> > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/x11-xserver-utils/x11
> > > -xs erver-utils_7.6+3/x11-xserver-utils.copyright [3]
> > > http://gpo.zugaina.org/x11-apps/iceauth/euscan
> > 
> > oe-core seems to prefer MIT too [1].
> 
> They named the file name MIT. But a lot of `xorg*` packages seem to use
> `MIT-X`, especially `xorg-app/xorg-app-common.inc`.
> 
>         $ git grep MIT-X
>         meta/classes/license.bbclass:SPDXLICENSEMAP[MIT-X] = "MIT"
>         meta/recipes-graphics/xcb/libxcb.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
>         meta/recipes-graphics/xcb/xcb-proto.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X"
>         meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-app/xorg-app-common.inc:LICENSE =
> "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-driver/xf86-driver-common.inc:LICENSE =
> "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-driver/xf86-video-omapfb_git.bb:LICENSE
> = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-font/xorg-font-common.inc:LICENSE =
> "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-lib/xorg-lib-common.inc:LICENSE =
> "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-proto/xorg-proto-common.inc:LICENSE =
> "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-util/xorg-util-common.inc:LICENSE =
> "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-xserver/xserver-xf86-common.inc:LICENSE
> = "MIT-X"
> meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-xserver/xserver-xf86-config_0.1.bb:LICENSE =
> "MIT-X"
> 
> So is this patch superfluous, because `LICENSE` is defined in the
> include file?
> 
> Regarding the name, in oe.dev most other recipes from The Open Group
> have `LICENSE = "MIT"`.
> 
> Is it useful to set `LICENSE` in an include file? We should decide that
> first.
> 
> > iceauth license looks same but appends additional sentence.
> 
> Actually the wording is quite different besides the capitalized
> paragraph.
> 
> > So if no objections I will coose MIT in next version of patch for
> > meta-oe.
> 
> It is even inconsistent in oe-core, so I really do not care much. But
> first the question above needs to be answered.
> 
> And Andreas, you could wait until I update the recipe in oe.dev and just
> copy it then to save you some time.
> 
Sure :-)

Andreas

Patch

diff --git a/recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb b/recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb
index e3b465f..bef5afb 100644
--- a/recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb
+++ b/recipes/xorg-app/iceauth_1.0.4.bb
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@ 
 DESCRIPTION = "Tool for manipulating ICE protocol authorization records"
+LICENSE = "MIT-X"
 DEPENDS += "libice"
 PE = "1"
-PR = "${INC_PR}.1"
+PR = "${INC_PR}.2"
 
 require xorg-app-common.inc