Re: [PATCH 6/7] liburcu: Add nios2 support

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:05:52 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:56:09 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 at 06:52:12 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 4:07 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 at 12:53:01 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > >> On 9 February 2016 at 11:31, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > > >>> -LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
> > > >>> "file://LICENSE;md5=0f060c30a27922ce9c0d557a639b4fa3 \
> > > >>> +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
> > > >>> "file://LICENSE;md5=e548d28737289d75a8f1e01ba2fd7825 \
> > > >> 
> > > >> Why did the license checksum change?
> > > > 
> > > > Because the LICENSE file now contains one more entry for nios2, which
> > > > changed the checksum of the whole file. Maybe we should trim the
> > > > checksum to use only the header in the LICENSE file and not the whole
> > > > file to prevent this ?
> > > > 
> > > > This is the change which triggered the change of the checksum:
> > > > 
> > > > +diff --git a/LICENSE b/LICENSE
> > > > +index 3147094..a06fdcc 100644
> > > > +--- a/LICENSE
> > > > ++++ b/LICENSE
> > > > +@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ compiler.h
> > > > + arch/s390.h
> > > > + uatomic/alpha.h
> > > > + uatomic/mips.h
> > > > ++uatomic/nios2.h
> > > 
> > > I don’t know how the LICENSE file looks like but including file names
> > > in license file is probably worth ignoring in checksums.
> > 
> > See below:
> > 
> > Userspace RCU library licensing
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > September 3, 2012
> > 
> > 
> > * LGPLv2.1
> > 
> > The library part is distributed under LGPLv2.1 or later. See lgpl-2.1.txt
> > for license details. Refer to the individual file headers for details.
> > 
> > LGPL-compatible source code can statically use the library header using :
> > 
> > #define _LGPL_SOURCE
> > #include <urcu.h>
> > 
> > Dynamic-only linking with the LGPL library is used if _LGPL_SOURCE is not
> > defined. It permits relinking with newer versions of the library, which
> > is required by the LGPL license.
> > 
> > See lgpl-relicensing.txt for details.
> > 
> > 
> > * MIT-style license :
> > 
> > xchg() primitive has been rewritten from scratch starting from atomic_ops
> > 1.2 which has a MIT-style license that is intended to allow use in both
> > 
> > free and proprietary software:
> >         http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/LICENSING.txt
> >         http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_source/
> > 
> > This MIT-style license (BSD like) apply to:
> > 
> > uatomic/gcc.h
> > uatomic/unknown.h
> > uatomic/generic.h
> > uatomic/sparc64.h
> > uatomic/arm.h
> > uatomic/ppc.h
> > uatomic/x86.h
> > uatomic.h
> > 
> > MIT/X11 (BSD like) license apply to:
> > 
> > compiler.h
> > arch/s390.h
> > uatomic/alpha.h
> > uatomic/mips.h
> > uatomic/nios2.h
> > uatomic/s390.h
> > system.h
> > 
> > 
> > * GPLv2
> > 
> > Library test code is distributed under the GPLv2 license. See gpl-2.0.txt
> > for license details. See headers of individual files under tests/ for
> > details.
> > 
> > 
> > * GPLv3 (or later)
> > 
> > The following build-related macro is under GPLv3 (or later):
> > 
> > m4/ax_tls.m4
> 
> If you only point to part of this file you are risking missing the addition
> of just about any license to the end of the list on a future upgrade. That
> doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Hm, ouch. In that case, I guess we should stick with the current situation and
update the license file checksum if needed ?