On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Hans Beckérus <hans.becke...@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@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto -- Elizabeth Flanagan Yocto Project Build and Release _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto