From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tegrarcm: License update for miniloader files Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:08:54 -0600 Message-ID: <51BFDD56.7060302@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1371525937-2713-1-git-send-email-amartin@nvidia.com> <1371525937-2713-2-git-send-email-amartin@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1371525937-2713-2-git-send-email-amartin-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Allen Martin Cc: linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 06/17/2013 09:25 PM, Allen Martin wrote: > This changes the license under which the miniloader files are > distributed to the same license used for the binary portions of the > Tegra L4T distribution. This should hopefully make the license more > palatable to distributions. > > Also changed the description to say that the license applies to all > files in the miniloader directory instead of individually listing the > files. This should hopefully prevent it from becoming stale. This still seems rather over-complex:-( > +2.1.1 Rights. Customer may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE > +on a single computer, and except for making one back-up copy of > +the Software, may not otherwise copy the SOFTWARE. This LICENSE > +of SOFTWARE may not be shared or used concurrently on different > +computers. > + > +2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms > +of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or > +FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the > +source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, > +provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way > +(except for unzipping of compressed files). Given that 2.1.2 appears to override 2.1.1 in the context of this SW, why even include 2.1.1? I know we're re-using the L4T license here, but I'd really prefer to just use something plain and simple that doesn't include irrelevant lawyer-speak. > +No Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone > +else. Isn't that going to cause problems for distros? IANAL, but that doesn't sound GPL compatible, since it's an additional restriction that I don't think the GPL imposes.