Re: LICENSE_{X}-xxx is parsed?

From: Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
	<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: LICENSE_{X}-xxx is parsed?
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABcZANnyFDurr+B6nW5nJz+3kq2RXp4403Eqhcahkt53ififeA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPhnLPCWAKLiLUfKVaguN_cFA=PAgRhW4vZ-pa1XDtW=Wugvpg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Flanagan, Elizabeth
<elizabeth.flanagan@intel.com> wrote:
> The rest of the packages in the bb should be inheriting LICENSE if no
> PN level license is set. Which obviously causes problems for the above
> example.
>
> In a case like above you'd want to do either of the following:
>
> a. Call out each package's license individually (better but can be
> painful for recipes with lots of packages)
> b. Leave GPLv3 out of LICENSE (easier but not technically accurate) so
> undefined package level licensing inherits the correct LICENSE.

I wonder if a partially specified set of individual package settings
should be identified by some sanity check (an explicit, rather than
implicit, one, like recipe_sanity) as a potential bug / source of
confusion. I suspect most of the time it should be one or the other,
either no individual package LICENSEs are defined, or they all should
be.
-- 
Christopher Larson