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?
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?
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