scarthgap: license issue in build time

[jiaxshi]

Describe the bug
Some recipes can not be built due to "do_create_spdx: Cannot find any text for license BSD"

There are multi-varaint of BSD license. Such as:

./BSD-2-Clause
./BSD-3-Clause
./BSD-4-Clause
./BSD-1-Clause
./BSD-3-Clause-Open-MPI

"BSD" is used for short in package.xml of some ROS projects. Then "LICENSE = "BSD" is used in generated recipes by superflore. And there 's not BSD license file which causes "Cannot find any text for license BSD" failure.

Known recipes:
sensor-msgs-py
image-transport
image-transport-plugins
cv-bridge

Temporary solution
We can add bbappends to reset LICENSE one by one... or
cp BSD-3-Clause BSD

[robwoolley]

Closing issue as resolved.

[jiaxshi]

Hi @robwoolley
Maybe I missed something, what's the official solution for the license issue?

[robwoolley]

Sorry, it referenced a closed issue,.so I thought it had been resolved. I see that you created the issue to track the larger problem.

I will reopen it.

[shr-project]

#1216 (comment)

[eigendude]

I tackled a few more ROS components: ros-perception/pcl_msgs#22 and ros-perception/perception_pcl#516. Do they automatically get pulled in by superflore? Will these packages get fixed in the scarthgap branch?

[robwoolley]

Hi @eigendude . Thanks for doing this! Yes, it will automatically get pulled in by superflore in the February sync.

The SPDX license identifiers has been a difficult issue. To provide context for anyone reading this:

• a proposal to add a type="spdx" attribute to the license element in package.xml was made: New attributes for license tag ros-infrastructure/rep#347
• written language explanation by the author: https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/changes-in-the-package-xml-about-licensing/32118
• the change was passed: https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/ros-2-tsc-meeting-minutes-2023-06-15/32038
• then the change was delayed in favour of including it in a future revision of the package format (New attributes for license tag ros-infrastructure/rep#347 (comment)) instead of modifying V3 (https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-0149.html#license-multiple-but-at-least-one)

As far as I can tell this is the correct and acceptable thing to do at the moment. However, in the future it may be necessary to go back and add the type="spdx" attribute to confirm to a future package format specification.

Regards,
Rob

[eigendude]

Thanks for the context. When I see multiple <license> tags I get worried, as SPDX has several conjunction operators like AND, OR, and WITH.

I have some more broken packages with a non-SPDX BSD license, if simple PRs like ros-perception/pcl_msgs#22 are the best solution in the short term to get Yocto building I can send more PRs.