| 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
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 > >
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
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
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
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
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(-)