[U-Boot] 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
Hi Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd@denx.de] Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Juli 2013 17:40 An: u-boot@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:
drivers/net/ne2000.h drivers/net/ne2000.c drivers/net/ne2000_base.h drivers/net/ne2000_base.c
Is this still in use somewhere?
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?
Agree, makes sense.
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.
Wound this make sense, or do you have a better suggestion?
No better idea available...
-roger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/28/2013 11:40 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
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 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 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?
Sounds good. In this case we would say something like "Linux Kernel driver and eCos driver files both used as reference".
- -- Tom
Dear Tom,
In message 51F666A4.9060406@ti.com you wrote:
drivers/net/ne2000.h drivers/net/ne2000.c drivers/net/ne2000_base.h drivers/net/ne2000_base.c
...
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.
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
participants (3)
-
Roger Meier -
Tom Rini -
Wolfgang Denk