[PATCH] pylibfdt: setup.py: Drop license_files

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 10:19:31AM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On 7/25/25 5:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 05:30:59PM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > > 
> > > On 7/25/25 5:18 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On more recent versions of setuptools the warning about not being able
> > > > to find the files specified in license_files has re-appeared. This is
> > > > because as best I can tell, it can't and won't look in $(srctree) but
> > > > rather only subdirectories of scripts/dtc/pylibfdt. Since we already
> > > > provide both SPDX tags and a license field with the SPDX contents, let
> > > > us just drop license_files as it's not mandatory.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > IANAL but I believe we need to ship the file, that's part of the license
> > > requirements for both GPL-2.0-or-later and BSD-2-Clause.
> > 
> > I mean, we who? As part of "we should re-examine how we bundle Python
> > stuff", yes, I don't know if our pylibfdt stuff is at all optimal
> > anymore and we should maybe we talking with upstream dtc more. But
> > $(srctree)/Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt and
> > $(srctree)/Licenses/bsd-2-clause.txt exist and we don't publish the
> > python binaries.
> > 
> 
> Yeah I guess it's the last part that matters, as far as I understood from
> what you wrote, this means it's essentially only used locally and never
> uploaded anywhere for consumption by users, so I believe that would be fine.
> 
> I guess this patch is an ok stop-gap measure?

Well, until such future point as we try and handle libfdt/dtc stuff
differently, maybe.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250728/4b94d0e1/attachment.sig>