From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:17:20 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] Introducing SPDX-License-Identifiers In-Reply-To: <1373441857-13033-1-git-send-email-wd@denx.de> References: <1373441857-13033-1-git-send-email-wd@denx.de> Message-ID: <20130724131720.GC19104@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big > blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the > source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very > difficult to generate License Clearing Reports. An additional problem > is that even the same lincenses are referred to by a number of > slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different > indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address > information, ...) which makes automatic processing a nightmare. > > To make this easier, such license headers in the source files will be > replaced with a single line reference to Unique Lincense Identifiers > as defined by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project [1]. For example, > in a source file the full "GPL v2.0 or later" header text will be > replaced by a single line: > > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > We use the SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers here; these are available > at [2]. > > Note: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only > a change to the textual representation of the license information, > but in no way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch > applied, all files will still be licensed under the same terms they > were before. > > Note 2: The apparent difference between the old "COPYING" and the new > "Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt" only results from switching to the upstream > version of the license which is differently formatted; there are not > any actual changes to the content. > > Note 3: There are some recurring questions about linense issues, such > as: > - Is a "All Rights Reserved" clause a problem in GPL code? > - Are files without any license header a problem? > - Do we need license headers at all? > > The following excerpt from an e-mail by Daniel B. Ravicher should help > with these: > > | Message-ID: <4ADF8CAA.5030808@softwarefreedom.org> > | Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:22 -0400 > | From: "Daniel B. Ravicher" > | To: Wolfgang Denk > | Subject: Re: GPL and license cleanup questions > | > | Mr. Denk, > | > | Wolfgang Denk wrote: > | > - There are a number of files which do not include any specific > | > license information at all. Is it correct to assume that these files > | > are automatically covered by the "GPL v2 or later" clause as > | > specified by the COPYING file in the top level directory of the > | > U-Boot source tree? > | > | That is a very fact specific analysis and could be different across the > | various files. However, if the contributor could reasonably be expected > | to have known that the project was licensed GPLv2 or later at the time > | she made her contribution, then a reasonably implication is that she > | consented to her contributions being distributed under those terms. > | > | > - Do such files need any clean up, for example should we add GPL > | > headers to them, or is this not needed? > | > | If the project as a whole is licensed under clear terms, you need not > | identify those same terms in each file, although there is no harm in > | doing so. > | > | > - There are other files, which include both a GPL license header > | > _plus_ some copyright note with an "All Rights Reserved" clause. It > | > has been my understanding that this is a conflict, and me must ask > | > the copyright holders to remove such "All Rights Reserved" clauses. > | > But then, some people claim that "All Rights Reserved" is a no-op > | > nowadays. License checking tools (like OSLC) seem to indicate this is > | > a problem, but then we see quite a lot of "All rights reserved" in > | > BSD-licensed files in gcc and glibc. So what is the correct way to > | > deal with such files? > | > | It is not a conflict to grant a license and also reserve all rights, as > | implicit in that language is that you are reserving all "other" rights > | not granted in the license. Thus, a file with "Licensed under GPL, All > | Rights Reserved" would mean that it is licensed under the GPL, but no > | other rights are given to copy, modify or redistribute it. > | > | Warm regards, > | --Dan > | > | Daniel B. Ravicher, Legal Director > | Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Moglen Ravicher LLC > | 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, NY 10023 > | (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax > | ravicher at softwarefreedom.org www.softwarefreedom.org > > [1] http://spdx.org/ > [2] http://spdx.org/licenses/ > > > Especially patch 2 is way too big for posting on the ML (patch > size: 6.5M, 5769 files changed, 6007 insertions, 91862 deletions). > Patches 2/5 through 5/5 will therefore NOT be posted here. > Instead, I pushed this code into the "SPDX-License-IDs" branch of the > u-boot-testing repository, see > > git://git.denx.de/u-boot-testing.git > http://git.denx.de/u-boot-testing.git > resp. > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-testing.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/SPDX-License-IDs > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk Along with the patch to fix common/cmd_io.c (the only file to have been badly mangled that I can find) that I just posted, along with a patch that takes the changes you made in v2 and v3 of 1/5, and does that as a separate patch (so I can re-use the git tree of yours as-is), this is applied to u-boot/master and I'll push it out soon (in case you think we need to squash things back into the first patch). Thanks! -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: