Re: [ptxdist] [PATCH] binutils: add license information

[Michael Tretter <m.tretter@pengutronix.de>]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:47:34AM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:43:19AM +0200, Michael Tretter wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Tretter <m.tretter@pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  rules/binutils.make | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/rules/binutils.make b/rules/binutils.make
> > index ca1080bc811d..094347e3f8bf 100644
> > --- a/rules/binutils.make
> > +++ b/rules/binutils.make
> > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ BINUTILS_SUFFIX		:= tar.bz2
> >  BINUTILS_URL		:= $(call ptx/mirror, GNU, binutils/$(BINUTILS).$(BINUTILS_SUFFIX))
> >  BINUTILS_SOURCE		:= $(SRCDIR)/$(BINUTILS).$(BINUTILS_SUFFIX)
> >  BINUTILS_DIR		:= $(BUILDDIR)/$(BINUTILS)
> > +BINUTILS_LICENSE	:= GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-or-later
> 
> No. The version is derived from the toolchain, so we cannot be sure that
> this is always correct. What we need to do is export the license
> information in the toolchain and import it here when possible. We already
> do the same thing for glibc and gcclibs.

Hm. The difference between glibc/gcclibs and the binutils is that for binutils
only the version is extracted from the toolchain and the binutils are build
from source in the BSP. Thus, we could also extract the license information
from the downloaded source code, which would be the same license as in the
toolchain. I'm not sure if this is actually simpler than exporting the
license information in the toolchain.

Michael

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de