From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:21:16 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] common/cmd_nand.c license terms In-Reply-To: <20130729200823.1480738047B@gemini.denx.de> (from wd@denx.de on Mon Jul 29 15:08:23 2013) Message-ID: <1375132876.30721.55@snotra> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 07/29/2013 03:08:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Scott, > > In message <1375127231.30721.54@snotra> you wrote: > > > > > Looking at this commit, it is totally unclear to me which parts > of the > > > newly added code you could be referring to with your "which are > not > > > considered a derived work of GPL v2-only code". > > > > > > Your addition makes the legal situation of the whole file pretty > much > > > indeterminable. Could you please be so kind and explain what > exactly > > > your intention was, and what exactly yuou were referring to? > > > > The license of the whole file is GPLv2 only. The intent was to > > Is it? Why so? It appears that the first versions of that file did > not include any license header at all, which means they were > contributed under the project-wide GPLv2+ license. > > Only your commit added - 7 years later! - a GPLv2 only license header, > and I really wonder what the base for this change would be? Hmm... The same text appears in drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c, which does have a pre-existing v2-only header. I probably applied it to cmd_nand.c as well because it was unclear whether the existing code was also v2-only. The project-wide COPYING did not have the "or later" language until Jan 9 2011 (commit b9347188729992ef8282a2854889d8dcc25175aa), so it's not clear to me that the project-wide license was GPLv2+ at the time that the older cmd_nand.c code was submitted, or even at the time that I added the above text. -Scott