Re: proper (vs weird) way to define proprietary licenses
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 3:13 AM Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...> wrote:
The typical approach for recipes which build proprietary code is to
set LICENSE to "CLOSED" (and not define LIC_FILES_CHKSUM).
I'm not sure what the advantages are of creating a license text for a
proprietary license (since presumably you won't be sharing the source
or license text with anyone). However, if you do need to do that for
some reason, be sure to double check COPYLEFT_LICENSE_EXCLUDE (e.g.
append your proprietary license to it from your layer.conf) in avoid
someone enabling the archiver class and accidentally including your
proprietary code in a release of the open source code used in a
turns out the meta-boundary layer has a nice example of what i'mDoesn't seem too unreasonable (aside from the comments above about
setting LICENSE to "CLOSED" for proprietary recipes).
in any event, i'm adding this to my current list of "stuff you might