use SPDX-License-Identifier for Kirkwood boards
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 60 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 60 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
| Patch | Jason Cooper |
|---|---|
| Series | A-b |
Trailers given in replies are filled; those carried in the patches from earlier versions are outlined with dashes.
Cover letter [PATCH 00/60] use SPDX-License-Identifier for Kirkwood boards
Hi Gregory,
Quoted 4 lines · Gregory CLEMENT
Hi,
this series follow the recent trend for the license description to use the SPDX-License-Identifier.
As there is no attempt to change any licenses at this time,
Quoted 13 lines
The device tree for the SoCs were already converted because they didn't have any licenses, so they were attributed a GPLv2.0 one.
In the end for kirkwood we have:
- 89 files under GPL2.0 (including the ones that initially didn't have any license)
- 8 files under GPL2.0+
- 8 files under dual license GPL2.0+/MIT (improperly called X11)
Quoted 7 lines
For the Armada we already switched all the file under a dual license GPL2.0/MIT or GPL2.0+/MIT, allowing other project to reuse the same device tree file. Maybe we should do the same for kirkwood, at least for the device tree describing the SoCs.
But I know it is not so easy because in this case we need to contact all the author in order to modify the license.
iirc, there was an explicit objection. I don't recall who though. Has anyone from *BSD been asking for a license change, or not supporting a board because of this? I have a softspot for kirkwood boards, but they are getting a bit long in the tooth...
thx,
Jason.