From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 23:57:59 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/2] i2c-tools: include LGPL-2.1+ license for libi2c In-Reply-To: <1535118847-21086-2-git-send-email-brad@nextdimension.cc> References: <1535118847-21086-1-git-send-email-brad@nextdimension.cc> <1535118847-21086-2-git-send-email-brad@nextdimension.cc> Message-ID: <20180824235759.4edac1f1@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:54:06 -0500, Brad Love wrote: > Extend i2c-tools SPDX identifiers to include the library license. > Also include COPYING.LGPL and README to license files. > > The ic2-tools readme states: > > LICENSE > > Check the documentation of individual tools for licensing information. > The library is released under the LGPL version 2.1 or later, while most > tools are released under the GPL version 2 or later, but there are a few > exceptions. > > Signed-off-by: Brad Love I've applied to master, but after adding the hashes of the additional license files to i2c-tools.hash. Yann: is it expected than missing hashes for license files is not a hard failure, when a hash file is present ? Perhaps it was back in the days, but maybe we should tighten up this ? Or at least in the case where one of the license files has a hash that is present, which was the case here. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com