[U-Boot] SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section?

[U-Boot] SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section?

[Wolfgang Denk]

Hello all,

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

- 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?

- 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.

  Wound this make sense, or do you have a better suggestion?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Remember that the best relationship is one in  which  your  love  for
each other exceeds your need for each other.             - Dalai Lama

[U-Boot] SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section?

[Roger Meier]

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

[U-Boot] SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section?

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/28/2013 11:40 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> 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
> 
> - 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?

I grabbed (because of the omap watchdog patch) 2.4.17, and that's (a)
older than our ne2k driver and (b) Already a GPLv2 and not 'or later'.
 This is, I think, GPL-2.0.

> - 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.
> 
> Wound this make sense, or do you have a better suggestion?

Sounds good.  In this case we would say something like "Linux Kernel
driver and eCos driver files both used as reference".

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=oO+C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section?

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Tom,

In message <51F666A4.9060406@ti.com> you wrote:
>
> > drivers/net/ne2000.h drivers/net/ne2000.c 
> > drivers/net/ne2000_base.h drivers/net/ne2000_base.c
...
> I grabbed (because of the omap watchdog patch) 2.4.17, and that's (a)
> older than our ne2k driver and (b) Already a GPLv2 and not 'or later'.
>  This is, I think, GPL-2.0.

I see. Thanks for pointing out.

> > SPDX-License-Comments:
> > 
> > which could be used to mark a text section that would contain such 
> > explanations.
> > 
> > Wound this make sense, or do you have a better suggestion?
> 
> Sounds good.  In this case we would say something like "Linux Kernel
> driver and eCos driver files both used as reference".

Right.  Thanks !

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
And the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
And the address of the memory makes your floppy disk abort,
Then the socket packet pocket has an error to report! - Ken Burchill?