From: Roger Meier <roger@bufferoverflow.ch>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section?
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 20:19:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <04f601ce8bbe$f34c3cf0$d9e4b6d0$@bufferoverflow.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130728154002.408853803E6@gemini.denx.de>
Hi Wolfgang
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd at denx.de]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Juli 2013 17:40
> An: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Cc: Roger Meier; Tom Rini; Albert ARIBAUD; Joe Hershberger
> Betreff: SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section?
> I need some help / recommendations how we should handle non-trivial
> license issues. For example, please have a look at the NE2000 network
> driver code:
>
> drivers/net/ne2000.h
> drivers/net/ne2000.c
> drivers/net/ne2000_base.h
> drivers/net/ne2000_base.c
Is this still in use somewhere?
>
> - First, these files include a statement that this code has been
> derived from Linux kernel and from eCOS sources and that it's
> released unter "GPL", but without stating wehter this means GPL-v2
> or GPL-v2+ or whatever.
>
> - Second, it includes the eCOS license header which basically says
> it's GPLv2+ plus some additional rights.
>
> - Third, if you track down the Linux source code mentioned above,
> this again says only "GPL" without additional specification.
>
>
> Two questions arise:
>
> - What should the resulting license(s) be in this specific case?
> I tend to interpret plain "GPL" as "GPLv2+", so we could probably
> summarize the license terms here as "eCos-2.0".
>
> What do you think?
Agree, makes sense.
>
> - I feel it would be helpful for future investigations if we are able
> to document our current understanding, so we don't have to
> re-investigate all this again and again each time we run into these
> files. My proposal is to define an additional "magic string"
>
> SPDX-License-Comments:
>
> which could be used to mark a text section that would contain such
> explanations.
Good idea, document the current understanding is worth to do.
SPDX defines the property LicenseComments at file and package level.
>
> Wound this make sense, or do you have a better suggestion?
No better idea available...
-roger
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-28 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-28 15:40 [U-Boot] SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section? Wolfgang Denk
2013-07-28 18:19 ` Roger Meier [this message]
2013-07-29 12:57 ` Tom Rini
2013-07-29 19:51 ` Wolfgang Denk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='04f601ce8bbe$f34c3cf0$d9e4b6d0$@bufferoverflow.ch' \
--to=roger@bufferoverflow.ch \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.