Options for metadata license identifiers


Richard Purdie
 

Hi,

I wondered if I might seek advice/opinions on a dilemma Yocto Project
is facing with license identifiers.

First, some background. We build software components from source and 
combine them together to make up an operating system (most often Linux). 
As such we have metadata we refer to as "recipes" which are basically 
lists of instructions on where to get a piece of software, how to 
configure it and so on. Our core layer has around 800 recipes
(http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/).

In addition we also store patches alongside the recipes which are applied
to the source code as part of the build process.

Where we have normal code for the build process, license identifiers
are easy and we've added them to our code/scripts as we're aligned with
SPDX and believe in what it is doing. Where we have concern is the recipes.

The recipes already have our own license identifiers in them for the 
software being built, for example the busybox recipe has:

$ cat meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox.inc | grep LIC
LICENSE = "GPLv2 & bzip2-1.0.4"
LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSE;md5=de10de48642ab74318e893a61105afbb \
file://archival/libarchive/bz/LICENSE;md5=28e3301eae987e8cfe19988e98383dae"

What this means is that the busybox source/binaries are under the listed 
licenses and that the two files mentioned contain license information.
We have a checksum there so that when we upgrade to a new version of 
busybox, if the checksums change, we know we need to re-evaluate the 
license field. Its not a perfect check but it does catch basic mistakes
and we can easily check and reject patches where it hasn't been re-evaluated.

Our license handling predates SPDX, we are trying to align to SPDX identifiers.

My question is what to put in the recipe to identify the license?

We can easily put a "# SPDX-License-Identifier:" into the recipe but there
is a lot of concern about how people might interpret this. Our top
level license says unless otherwise stated, recipe metadata is MIT licensed
so the license is relatively clear. The worry is something like:

# SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
LICENSE = "GPLv2 & bzip2-1.0.4"

makes for very confusing reading and can be badly interpreted.

I have some ideas about what we might have to do to make this really clear
but they have downsides. I wondered if there was any advice here on how
best to handle this? Once we know how to do it, marking up the recipes is 
relatively straightforward, we just need to establish what makes sense.

Also, there is a secondary problem of which license any patches we have
are under and what license identifier (if any) we should put in those.
Those would likely need to match the upstream project source they're patching
I'd imagine but I don't know if we want to mark up all the patches or not.

Cheers,

Richard

Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.