linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: gregory.clement@free-electrons.com (Gregory CLEMENT)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] arm64: dts: marvell: use SPDX-License-Identifier for Armada SoCs
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 16:27:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o9m48j6a.fsf@free-electrons.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180105153020.GF4038@lunn.ch> (Andrew Lunn's message of "Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:30:20 +0100")

Hi Andrew,
 
 On ven., janv. 05 2018, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 03:55:55PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>  
>>  On ven., janv. 05 2018, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> >> > The previous license was GPL-2.0+ or X11, not GPL-2.0+ or MIT. Any
>> >> > reason to change from X11 to MIT ?
>> >> 
>> >> As explained in the commit log:
>> >> " the X11 license text [1] is explicitly for the X Consortium and has a
>> >> couple of extra clauses. The MIT license text [2] is actually what the
>> >> current DT files claim."
>> >> 
>> >> Also as I wrote it was already discussed on the mainling lists (device
>> >> tree one and LAKML) see:
>> >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-February/489922.html
>> >
>> > Hi Gregory
>> >
>> > If i remember correctly, there was a reason for X11 over MIT. I think
>> > Russell King looked into this. Maybe you can find the discussion on
>> > the mailing list?
>
> Hi Gregory
>
> I'm meaning an older discussion, when we first started using dual
> license. There was some discussion back then as to MIT vs X11.
> That discussion could be relevant here.

It was what I have looked for initially. But I didn't find it. I wonder
if the question was first discussed at a conference.

> What we need to be careful of is ensuring the changes you are making
> here don't actually change the licenses.  If the intent was to use
> X11, and we actually state "X11 license" in the source code, we need
> to be careful if we replace that with MIT.

I think that it the content of the text of the license show more the
intent that the title. Moreover, by using the MIT keyword on SPDX we
really have the exactly same content.

Oh and finally I found the thread:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg358704.html

So even there the X11 license was referred as a MIT X11 license, and,
really, I don't think at any moment we intend to mention the X
Consortium for the device tree files. It was just the name "MIT license"
which was considered as ambiguous.

Gregory

>
>    Andrew

-- 
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-08 15:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-05 11:53 [PATCH 0/7] use SPDX-License-Identifier for Armada SoCs and boards Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 11:53 ` [PATCH 1/7] arm64: dts: marvell: use SPDX-License-Identifier for Armada SoCs Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 12:40   ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-01-05 12:45     ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-01-05 12:52     ` Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 14:38       ` Andrew Lunn
2018-01-05 14:55         ` Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 15:30           ` Andrew Lunn
2018-01-08 15:27             ` Gregory CLEMENT [this message]
2018-01-05 11:53 ` [PATCH 2/7] arm64: dts: marvell: armada-3720-db: use SPDX-License-Identifier Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 11:53 ` [PATCH 3/7] arm64: dts: marvell: armada-3720-espressobin: " Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 11:53 ` [PATCH 4/7] arm64: dts: marvell: armada-7040-db: " Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 11:53 ` [PATCH 5/7] arm64: dts: marvell: armada-8040-db: " Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 11:53 ` [PATCH 6/7] arm64: dts: marvell: armada-8040-mcbin: " Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 11:53 ` [PATCH 7/7] arm64: dts: marvell: armada-8080-db: " Gregory CLEMENT
2018-01-05 11:58 ` [PATCH 0/7] use SPDX-License-Identifier for Armada SoCs and boards Gregory CLEMENT
2018-02-14 12:24 ` Gregory CLEMENT

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=87o9m48j6a.fsf@free-electrons.com \
    --to=gregory.clement@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).