From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Meier Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 20:19:07 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section? In-Reply-To: <20130728154002.408853803E6@gemini.denx.de> References: <20130728154002.408853803E6@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <04f601ce8bbe$f34c3cf0$d9e4b6d0$@bufferoverflow.ch> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.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