SPDX-License-Identifier: adding a comment section?
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
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 Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other. - Dalai Lama
Hi Wolfgang
Quoted 10 lines
-----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:
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/net/ne2000.h drivers/net/ne2000.c drivers/net/ne2000_base.h drivers/net/ne2000_base.c
Is this still in use somewhere?
Quoted 13 lines
- 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.
Quoted 7 lines
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.
Quoted 10 lines
- 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.
Quoted 2 lines
Wound this make sense, or do you have a better suggestion?
No better idea available...
-roger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Quoted 21 lines · 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.hdrivers/net/ne2000.cdrivers/net/ne2000_base.hdrivers/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.
Quoted 7 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
- 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"
Quoted 6 lines
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/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR9majAAoJENk4IS6UOR1WCFEQAIDnb0TRvv1SL30MQVWkfRG7 oas1HQPBpLX0MUAt5M7NBHSh9KLgl/GA5aHX7CsgAUh0i7x2oO00x0wUdH59HEbV UyJN0QbbYXmlceTXJzIEYP+GALzLtyg3GYE8JBwYOV3r5KV0askqlDoxq6A0354J BjgfEc+GYyBiik1fHvAm64yAHOTd/m02WLYmHA+eNpNvYqrjlOmXI5/Kll6PJ28b YAT4Jn7PY1rwxrFEVbDSWqq0ZsorkJDgpVjB4iwetGSJjS/Ov39kfDT3x8W7qXI8 5R9DzzIvhy80YXY54EUCFt2RvClJJd5uOa4SxTz9SfpI76KpSSzj8qq0hkFyXyOg eRwcsTZUTnfSeNDu9IKV2SrxSDFdMWb58pej0fjkoxKvi2ID+8wuA0GJ/sS04IRo reA7PlRPElc/e0YtsH87487qwNoRf8Bu11T98+QAbLLew6LBdSYKJlif114z+agY 1qzsb9KuC4gkSJYDLdY4pAxmu89GQXrpwAzIT5/mhv0fCmGxXo3HB5TmSxPpMHB+ MlzaBreZozaER7e9WhLpJ52XQK3w4t4C3VPMvz5onVekSs9NEBgf1OgRsYAdep96 dWJKGFpCle75MAs03jE0T8i7AquMpSx94MnsVJ2tJIxEQ6HRMFxg/Ux7IONvzRCa fxRXJ0SYcg3JdFqRYvO0
=oO+C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Tom,
Quoted 3 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
drivers/net/ne2000.hdrivers/net/ne2000.cdrivers/net/ne2000_base.hdrivers/net/ne2000_base.c
...
Quoted 3 lines
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.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
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
Signature · 7 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 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?