[OE-core][opkg-utils ] Bug 13528 : adding SPDX license identifier

[OE-core][opkg-utils ] Bug 13528 : adding SPDX license identifier

[Ycn aKaJoseph]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 545 bytes --]

Hi guys,

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528

I'm about to work on that bug however most of the script in opkg-utils dir
are un-licenced and there's no hint for me to decide what SPDX Identifier
to add.

The doubt concerns those script :
makePackage
opkg-build
opkg-buildpackage
opkg-compare-indexes
opkg-diff
opkg-extract-file
opkg-graph-deps
opkg-list-fields
opkg-make-index
opkg-show-deps
opkg-unbuild
opkg-update-index

What license do you want them to carry ?

Best regards,

Yann CARDAILLAC

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 823 bytes --]

Re: [opkg-devel] [OE-core][opkg-utils ] Bug 13528 : adding SPDX license identifier

[Alejandro Del Castillo]

On 10/11/19 8:51 AM, Ycn aKaJoseph wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!8RtsWJXbDz_l063ZSVKrRMwvQ5KGdD0lk9aSjlUW9VHM2wufITJnBuIvovQxoT0yJXu-6Q$>
> 
> I'm about to work on that bug however most of the script in opkg-utils 
> dir are un-licenced and there's no hint for me to decide what SPDX 
> Identifier to add.

thanks for doing this!

> The doubt concerns those script :
> makePackage
> opkg-build
> opkg-buildpackage
> opkg-compare-indexes
> opkg-diff
> opkg-extract-file
> opkg-graph-deps
> opkg-list-fields
> opkg-make-index
> opkg-show-deps
> opkg-unbuild
> opkg-update-index
> 
> What license do you want them to carry ?

Looking at the commit history, opkg-graph-deps was authored by Haris 
Okanovic, and the rest by Richard Purdie (included them on the thread).

My take on it:  since opkg is licensed as GPLv2+, and the files that 
have a license in opkg-utils are GPLv2+, make sense to me to license the 
rest as GPLv2+ too.

Haris, Richard, thoughts?

-- 
Cheers,

Alejandro

Re: [opkg-devel] [OE-core][opkg-utils ] Bug 13528 : adding SPDX license identifier

[Haris Okanovic]

I have no objection. Do you have a patch with this change?

-- Haris


On 10/11/19 10:54 AM, Alejandro Del Castillo wrote:
> 
> On 10/11/19 8:51 AM, Ycn aKaJoseph wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!8RtsWJXbDz_l063ZSVKrRMwvQ5KGdD0lk9aSjlUW9VHM2wufITJnBuIvovQxoT0yJXu-6Q$>
>>
>> I'm about to work on that bug however most of the script in opkg-utils
>> dir are un-licenced and there's no hint for me to decide what SPDX
>> Identifier to add.
> 
> thanks for doing this!
> 
>> The doubt concerns those script :
>> makePackage
>> opkg-build
>> opkg-buildpackage
>> opkg-compare-indexes
>> opkg-diff
>> opkg-extract-file
>> opkg-graph-deps
>> opkg-list-fields
>> opkg-make-index
>> opkg-show-deps
>> opkg-unbuild
>> opkg-update-index
>>
>> What license do you want them to carry ?
> 
> Looking at the commit history, opkg-graph-deps was authored by Haris
> Okanovic, and the rest by Richard Purdie (included them on the thread).
> 
> My take on it:  since opkg is licensed as GPLv2+, and the files that
> have a license in opkg-utils are GPLv2+, make sense to me to license the
> rest as GPLv2+ too.
> 
> Haris, Richard, thoughts?
> 

Re: [opkg-devel] [OE-core][opkg-utils ] Bug 13528 : adding SPDX license identifier

[richard.purdie]

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 15:54 +0000, Alejandro Del Castillo wrote:
> On 10/11/19 8:51 AM, Ycn aKaJoseph wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528 
> > <
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!8RtsWJXbDz_l063ZSVKrRMwvQ5KGdD0lk9aSjlUW9VHM2wufITJnBuIvovQxoT0yJXu-6Q$
> > >
> > 
> > I'm about to work on that bug however most of the script in opkg-
> > utils 
> > dir are un-licenced and there's no hint for me to decide what SPDX 
> > Identifier to add.
> 
> thanks for doing this!
> 
> > The doubt concerns those script :
> > makePackage
> > opkg-build
> > opkg-buildpackage
> > opkg-compare-indexes
> > opkg-diff
> > opkg-extract-file
> > opkg-graph-deps
> > opkg-list-fields
> > opkg-make-index
> > opkg-show-deps
> > opkg-unbuild
> > opkg-update-index
> > 
> > What license do you want them to carry ?
> 
> Looking at the commit history, opkg-graph-deps was authored by Haris 
> Okanovic, and the rest by Richard Purdie (included them on the
> thread).
> 
> My take on it:  since opkg is licensed as GPLv2+, and the files that 
> have a license in opkg-utils are GPLv2+, make sense to me to license
> the rest as GPLv2+ too.

I didn't author these, they were imported from ipkg-utils which was
part of handhelds.org. I did modify things quite a bit during the
import.

handhelds.org's CVS repos aren't there any more but I do have old
sources lying around locally. I have a snapshot of the CVS repo from
20050930 and it has GPLv2 COPYING file (not 2+, just 2).

I'd suggest we follow the original licensing of that and go with GPLv2.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [opkg-devel] [OE-core][opkg-utils ] Bug 13528 : adding SPDX license identifier

[Ycn aKaJoseph]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2167 bytes --]

Hi,

GPL-2.0-only was applied to script without previous Licences and
GPL-2.0-or-later to those mentioning it, however I'm wondering if I should
also add a SPDX id to the makefile ?

Here's first attempt without identifier to the Makefile.

Best regards,



On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 15:54 +0000, Alejandro Del Castillo wrote:
> > On 10/11/19 8:51 AM, Ycn aKaJoseph wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528
> > > <
> > >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!8RtsWJXbDz_l063ZSVKrRMwvQ5KGdD0lk9aSjlUW9VHM2wufITJnBuIvovQxoT0yJXu-6Q$
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm about to work on that bug however most of the script in opkg-
> > > utils
> > > dir are un-licenced and there's no hint for me to decide what SPDX
> > > Identifier to add.
> >
> > thanks for doing this!
> >
> > > The doubt concerns those script :
> > > makePackage
> > > opkg-build
> > > opkg-buildpackage
> > > opkg-compare-indexes
> > > opkg-diff
> > > opkg-extract-file
> > > opkg-graph-deps
> > > opkg-list-fields
> > > opkg-make-index
> > > opkg-show-deps
> > > opkg-unbuild
> > > opkg-update-index
> > >
> > > What license do you want them to carry ?
> >
> > Looking at the commit history, opkg-graph-deps was authored by Haris
> > Okanovic, and the rest by Richard Purdie (included them on the
> > thread).
> >
> > My take on it:  since opkg is licensed as GPLv2+, and the files that
> > have a license in opkg-utils are GPLv2+, make sense to me to license
> > the rest as GPLv2+ too.
>
> I didn't author these, they were imported from ipkg-utils which was
> part of handhelds.org. I did modify things quite a bit during the
> import.
>
> handhelds.org's CVS repos aren't there any more but I do have old
> sources lying around locally. I have a snapshot of the CVS repo from
> 20050930 and it has GPLv2 COPYING file (not 2+, just 2).
>
> I'd suggest we follow the original licensing of that and go with GPLv2.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3389 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-add-SPDX-license-identifiers.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 4336 bytes --]

From f660e59d0a1b80e4e7d206386577105a4465db2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yann CARDAILLAC <ycnakajsph@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:15:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] add SPDX license identifiers

Signed-off-by: Yann CARDAILLAC <ycnakajsph@gmail.com>
---
 arfile.py            | 1 +
 opkg-build           | 2 +-
 opkg-buildpackage    | 1 +
 opkg-compare-indexes | 1 +
 opkg-diff            | 2 +-
 opkg-extract-file    | 2 +-
 opkg-graph-deps      | 1 +
 opkg-list-fields     | 1 +
 opkg-make-index      | 1 +
 opkg-show-deps       | 1 +
 opkg-unbuild         | 1 +
 opkg-update-index    | 1 +
 opkg.py              | 1 +
 update-alternatives  | 1 +
 14 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arfile.py b/arfile.py
index 60edd9b..3b351d8 100644
--- a/arfile.py
+++ b/arfile.py
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 """
 arfile - A module to parse GNU ar archives.
 
diff --git a/opkg-build b/opkg-build
index 2517a2b..d09bbfe 100755
--- a/opkg-build
+++ b/opkg-build
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 #!/bin/sh
-
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 : <<=cut
 =head1 NAME
 
diff --git a/opkg-buildpackage b/opkg-buildpackage
index b7c0e8c..9e00e42 100755
--- a/opkg-buildpackage
+++ b/opkg-buildpackage
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/bin/sh
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 #
 # Author: Oliver Kurth <oliver.kurth@innominate.com>
 #
diff --git a/opkg-compare-indexes b/opkg-compare-indexes
index b60d20a..45134e2 100755
--- a/opkg-compare-indexes
+++ b/opkg-compare-indexes
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env python
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 from __future__ import absolute_import
 from __future__ import print_function
 
diff --git a/opkg-diff b/opkg-diff
index bad0b3c..06e6020 100755
--- a/opkg-diff
+++ b/opkg-diff
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 #!/bin/sh
-
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 pkg1=$1
 dir1=`echo $pkg1 | sed s/.opk//`
 dir1=`basename $dir1` 
diff --git a/opkg-extract-file b/opkg-extract-file
index 7c952ad..bc7c9bd 100755
--- a/opkg-extract-file
+++ b/opkg-extract-file
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 #!/bin/sh
-
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 set -e
 
 if [ $# -lt 1 ]; then
diff --git a/opkg-graph-deps b/opkg-graph-deps
index 6653fd5..316057a 100755
--- a/opkg-graph-deps
+++ b/opkg-graph-deps
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env python
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 from __future__ import absolute_import
 from __future__ import print_function
 
diff --git a/opkg-list-fields b/opkg-list-fields
index 8a5a588..434f2ae 100755
--- a/opkg-list-fields
+++ b/opkg-list-fields
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env python
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 from __future__ import absolute_import
 from __future__ import print_function
 
diff --git a/opkg-make-index b/opkg-make-index
index 83e5160..6c6ecad 100755
--- a/opkg-make-index
+++ b/opkg-make-index
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env python
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 """
    Utility to create opkg compatible indexes
 """
diff --git a/opkg-show-deps b/opkg-show-deps
index 153f21e..f345087 100755
--- a/opkg-show-deps
+++ b/opkg-show-deps
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env python
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 from __future__ import absolute_import
 from __future__ import print_function
 
diff --git a/opkg-unbuild b/opkg-unbuild
index 4f36bec..9683de7 100755
--- a/opkg-unbuild
+++ b/opkg-unbuild
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env python
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 from __future__ import absolute_import
 from __future__ import print_function
 
diff --git a/opkg-update-index b/opkg-update-index
index 341c1c2..43f1234 100755
--- a/opkg-update-index
+++ b/opkg-update-index
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env python
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 from __future__ import absolute_import
 
 import sys, os
diff --git a/opkg.py b/opkg.py
index d4e7825..43a2ead 100644
--- a/opkg.py
+++ b/opkg.py
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env python
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
 #   Copyright (C) 2001 Alexander S. Guy <a7r@andern.org>
 #                      Andern Research Labs
 #
diff --git a/update-alternatives b/update-alternatives
index d4fa7eb..1389b3f 100644
--- a/update-alternatives
+++ b/update-alternatives
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 #!/bin/sh
+#  SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
 # update-alternatives
 #
 # Copyright (C) 2001 Carl D. Worth
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [opkg-devel] [OE-core][opkg-utils ] Bug 13528 : adding SPDX license identifier

[Alejandro Del Castillo]

On 10/14/19 7:36 AM, Ycn aKaJoseph wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> GPL-2.0-only was applied to script without previous Licences and 
> GPL-2.0-or-later to those mentioning it, however I'm wondering if I 
> should also add a SPDX id to the makefile ?
> 
> Here's first attempt without identifier to the Makefile.

I don't have a preference regarding adding a SPDX identifier for the 
Makefile. If I don't see any comments one way or the other, I will pull 
the patch in, by the end of the week.

thanks again for taking care of this,

Alejandro

> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org 
> <mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 15:54 +0000, Alejandro Del Castillo wrote:
>      > On 10/11/19 8:51 AM, Ycn aKaJoseph wrote:
>      > > Hi guys,
>      > >
>      > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!4ZugVhFkOciFucw9FbYbLCErJ647XFyLvF76MP_0Uo4F8sa51hi1GbwmPmZTisU17VqszQ$>
> 
>      > > <
>      > >
>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!8RtsWJXbDz_l063ZSVKrRMwvQ5KGdD0lk9aSjlUW9VHM2wufITJnBuIvovQxoT0yJXu-6Q$
>      > > >
>      > >
>      > > I'm about to work on that bug however most of the script in opkg-
>      > > utils
>      > > dir are un-licenced and there's no hint for me to decide what SPDX
>      > > Identifier to add.
>      >
>      > thanks for doing this!
>      >
>      > > The doubt concerns those script :
>      > > makePackage
>      > > opkg-build
>      > > opkg-buildpackage
>      > > opkg-compare-indexes
>      > > opkg-diff
>      > > opkg-extract-file
>      > > opkg-graph-deps
>      > > opkg-list-fields
>      > > opkg-make-index
>      > > opkg-show-deps
>      > > opkg-unbuild
>      > > opkg-update-index
>      > >
>      > > What license do you want them to carry ?
>      >
>      > Looking at the commit history, opkg-graph-deps was authored by Haris
>      > Okanovic, and the rest by Richard Purdie (included them on the
>      > thread).
>      >
>      > My take on it:  since opkg is licensed as GPLv2+, and the files that
>      > have a license in opkg-utils are GPLv2+, make sense to me to license
>      > the rest as GPLv2+ too.
> 
>     I didn't author these, they were imported from ipkg-utils which was
>     part of handhelds.org
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://handhelds.org__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!4ZugVhFkOciFucw9FbYbLCErJ647XFyLvF76MP_0Uo4F8sa51hi1GbwmPmZTisWdWuYokA$>.
>     I did modify things quite a bit during the
>     import.
> 
>     handhelds.org
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://handhelds.org__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!4ZugVhFkOciFucw9FbYbLCErJ647XFyLvF76MP_0Uo4F8sa51hi1GbwmPmZTisWdWuYokA$>'s
>     CVS repos aren't there any more but I do have old
>     sources lying around locally. I have a snapshot of the CVS repo from
>     20050930 and it has GPLv2 COPYING file (not 2+, just 2).
> 
>     I'd suggest we follow the original licensing of that and go with GPLv2.
> 
>     Cheers,
> 
>     Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [opkg-devel] [OE-core][opkg-utils ] Bug 13528 : adding SPDX license identifier

[Alejandro Del Castillo]

merged, thanks!

On 10/15/19 2:58 PM, Alejandro Del Castillo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/14/19 7:36 AM, Ycn aKaJoseph wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> GPL-2.0-only was applied to script without previous Licences and
>> GPL-2.0-or-later to those mentioning it, however I'm wondering if I
>> should also add a SPDX id to the makefile ?
>>
>> Here's first attempt without identifier to the Makefile.
> 
> I don't have a preference regarding adding a SPDX identifier for the
> Makefile. If I don't see any comments one way or the other, I will pull
> the patch in, by the end of the week.
> 
> thanks again for taking care of this,
> 
> Alejandro
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>>      On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 15:54 +0000, Alejandro Del Castillo wrote:
>>       > On 10/11/19 8:51 AM, Ycn aKaJoseph wrote:
>>       > > Hi guys,
>>       > >
>>       > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!4_UTkft6YvqISMi_ZyxT3nbBDdxbyllWZ59OHmmikFQqAnQ-ln7pGeLjNidedeIGY0iDgA$
>>      <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!4ZugVhFkOciFucw9FbYbLCErJ647XFyLvF76MP_0Uo4F8sa51hi1GbwmPmZTisU17VqszQ$>
>>
>>       > > <
>>       > >
>>      https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13528__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!8RtsWJXbDz_l063ZSVKrRMwvQ5KGdD0lk9aSjlUW9VHM2wufITJnBuIvovQxoT0yJXu-6Q$
>>       > > >
>>       > >
>>       > > I'm about to work on that bug however most of the script in opkg-
>>       > > utils
>>       > > dir are un-licenced and there's no hint for me to decide what SPDX
>>       > > Identifier to add.
>>       >
>>       > thanks for doing this!
>>       >
>>       > > The doubt concerns those script :
>>       > > makePackage
>>       > > opkg-build
>>       > > opkg-buildpackage
>>       > > opkg-compare-indexes
>>       > > opkg-diff
>>       > > opkg-extract-file
>>       > > opkg-graph-deps
>>       > > opkg-list-fields
>>       > > opkg-make-index
>>       > > opkg-show-deps
>>       > > opkg-unbuild
>>       > > opkg-update-index
>>       > >
>>       > > What license do you want them to carry ?
>>       >
>>       > Looking at the commit history, opkg-graph-deps was authored by Haris
>>       > Okanovic, and the rest by Richard Purdie (included them on the
>>       > thread).
>>       >
>>       > My take on it:  since opkg is licensed as GPLv2+, and the files that
>>       > have a license in opkg-utils are GPLv2+, make sense to me to license
>>       > the rest as GPLv2+ too.
>>
>>      I didn't author these, they were imported from ipkg-utils which was
>>      part of handhelds.org
>>      <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://handhelds.org__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!4ZugVhFkOciFucw9FbYbLCErJ647XFyLvF76MP_0Uo4F8sa51hi1GbwmPmZTisWdWuYokA$>.
>>      I did modify things quite a bit during the
>>      import.
>>
>>      handhelds.org
>>      <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://handhelds.org__;!fqWJcnlTkjM!4ZugVhFkOciFucw9FbYbLCErJ647XFyLvF76MP_0Uo4F8sa51hi1GbwmPmZTisWdWuYokA$>'s
>>      CVS repos aren't there any more but I do have old
>>      sources lying around locally. I have a snapshot of the CVS repo from
>>      20050930 and it has GPLv2 COPYING file (not 2+, just 2).
>>
>>      I'd suggest we follow the original licensing of that and go with GPLv2.
>>
>>      Cheers,
>>
>>      Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Cheers,

Alejandro