public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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