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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox