common/cmd_nand.c license terms
Dear Scott,
with commit ea533c2 "cmd_nand: some infrastructure fixes and refactoring" (Mon Aug 02, 2010), you added the following license header to common/cmd_nand.c :
+ * Copyright 2010 Freescale Semiconductor
+ * The portions of this file whose copyright is held by Freescale and which
+ * are not considered a derived work of GPL v2-only code may be distributed
+ * and/or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
+ * License, or (at your option) any later version.
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?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 4 lines
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 How come everyone's going so slow if it's called rush hour?
Quoted 16 lines · Wolfgang Denk
Dear Scott,
with commit ea533c2 "
cmd_nand: some infrastructure fixes and refactoring" (Mon Aug 02, 2010), you added the following license header tocommon/cmd_nand.c:+ * Copyright 2010 Freescale Semiconductor
+ * The portions of this file whose copyright is held by Freescale and which
+ * are not considered a derived work of GPL v2-only code may be distributed
+ * and/or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
+ * License, or (at your option) any later version.
Quoted 7 lines
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 preemptively grant relicensing permission for GPLv2 or later, if a similar agreement could be reached from other copyright holders, or if the file eventually changes to the point where none of the original v2-only code remains, and if what is left isn't considered derivative of that older code. Likewise, it could be useful (in conjunction with git history) if code gets moved from one file to another.
As for which parts are considered a derivative, I am not a lawyer and can't answer that. It's not a licensing question, but rather a basic copyright question. The point is that it wouldn't be Freescale raising a copyright complaint[1] if you were to license it as v2 or later.
It was a response to your asking for no more v2-only code in U-Boot. We can remove the above text (except the actual copyright line) and make it clearly v2-only if you'd prefer.
-Scott
[1] If you were to actually relicense U-Boot to v3, we'd have a different sort of complaint, in that we'd probably want to fork, but that's separate from licensing.
Dear Scott,
Quoted 10 lines · In message <1375127231.30721.54@snotra> you wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
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?
Quoted 4 lines
preemptively grant relicensing permission for GPLv2 or later, if a similar agreement could be reached from other copyright holders, or if the file eventually changes to the point where none of the original v2-only code remains, and if what is left isn't considered derivative
Which "original v2-only code" are you referring to?
Quoted 8 lines
As for which parts are considered a derivative, I am not a lawyer and can't answer that. It's not a licensing question, but rather a basic copyright question. The point is that it wouldn't be Freescale raising a copyright complaint[1] if you were to license it as v2 or later.
It was a response to your asking for no more v2-only code in U-Boot. We can remove the above text (except the actual copyright line) and make it clearly v2-only if you'd prefer.
I fail to see where your "v2-only" notion is coming from.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 5 lines
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 I had the rare misfortune of being one of the first people to try and implement a PL/1 compiler. -- T. Cheatham
Quoted 16 lines · Wolfgang Denk
Dear Scott,
Quoted 2 lines · In message <1375127231.30721.54@snotra> you wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
Looking at this commit, it is totally unclear to me which parts
of the
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
newly added code you could be referring to with your "which are
not
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
considered a derived work of GPL v2-only code".
Your addition makes the legal situation of the whole file pretty
much
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
indeterminable. Could you please be so kind and explain what
exactly
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 1 line
your intention was, and what exactly yuou were referring to?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
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