On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 12:49:56PM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 07:28:04AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Steve Rae,
In message 1409763954-5494-4-git-send-email-srae@broadcom.com you wrote:
- port dprintf() to debug()
- update formatting
Signed-off-by: Steve Rae srae@broadcom.com
Changes in v3:
- use original license text
Changes in v2:
- use BSD-3-Clause
common/aboot.c | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/aboot.c b/common/aboot.c index a302c92..3611feb 100644 --- a/common/aboot.c +++ b/common/aboot.c @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@
- OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
- ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
- NOTE:
- Although it is very similar, this license text is not
identical
- to the "BSD-3-Clause", therefore, DO NOT MODIFY THIS
LICENSE TEXT! */
I understand your intention of starting with the pristine file, and then adaptng it to U-Boot, but I don't like adding a broken file in patch 1/4 only to fix it later in patch 3/4. I think it would be better to squash these patches.
But it would make tracking things a bit harder. We could squash 2/4 and 3/4 into one easy enough tho.
Second, as already mentioned, we need to assign a SPDX ID for this.
Did you check with SPDX if there a matching ID?
So, we've gone round-and-round on this, and Steve is doing what I asked him to here. In sum, this is _not_ BSD-3, it's a one-off from it with some interesting wording changes that mean we can't just call it BSD-3. Since there's nothing else going to use this (and frankly I'm mildly puzzled by how hard it is to dig up an aboot.c with sparse image support that doesn't have this change but also does come from a google domain) I didn't want to add a new license file for this non-standard license.
Do we have the agreement here and therefore there aren't any obstacles to include those patches to u-boot?
Yes. I plan on grabbing them shortly.