[U-Boot] dual licensed files
Thank you Wolfgang for simplifying license handling!
What about dual licensed files? What do you prefer?
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause or SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+, BSD-2-Clause Other seperator?
All the best! -roger
Dear Roger,
In message 047701ce8a46$bcc78820$36569860$@bufferoverflow.ch you wrote:
Thank you Wolfgang for simplifying license handling!
You are welcome!
What about dual licensed files? What do you prefer?
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
This was my initial idea when I started thinking about this, but then I realized that there were a few files that had (by accident) both GPL-2.0+ and GPL-2.0 license headers (separated by a larger text block, so it was not obvious at first glance), so my first attempts of automatic editing would generate two (here incompatible) License-ID entries.
Because of this I think there should be exactly one License-ID entry in any file. So for dual-licensed files the entry should list the license IDs in a single entry.
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+, BSD-2-Clause Other seperator?
Yes, please let's just use white space for separation; this is easier to parse by simple (shell) scripts.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
In [1] we discussed how we should deal with dual (or, more generally, multiple) licensed files. Add this to Licenses/README so it's properly documented.
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166518
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de --- Licenses/README | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Licenses/README b/Licenses/README index 9f61192..6dd7d5b 100644 --- a/Licenses/README +++ b/Licenses/README @@ -37,6 +37,18 @@ replaced by a single line:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+Ideally, the license terms of all files in the source tree should be +defined by such License Identifiers; in no case a file can contain +more than one such License Identifier. + +If a "SPDX-License-Identifier:" line references more than one Unique +License Identifier, then this means that the respective file can be +used under the terms of either of these licenses, i. e. with + + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ BSD-3-Clause + +you can chose between GPL-2.0+ and BSD-3-Clause licensing. + We use the SPDX Unique License Identifiers here; these are available at [2].
On 10/08/2013 01:53 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In [1] we discussed how we should deal with dual (or, more generally, multiple) licensed files. Add this to Licenses/README so it's properly documented.
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166518
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
Licenses/README | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Licenses/README b/Licenses/README index 9f61192..6dd7d5b 100644 --- a/Licenses/README +++ b/Licenses/README @@ -37,6 +37,18 @@ replaced by a single line:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+Ideally, the license terms of all files in the source tree should be +defined by such License Identifiers; in no case a file can contain +more than one such License Identifier.
I assume "one such License Identifier" here is intended to mean: a source line prefixed with the words "SPDX-License-Identifier:". However, to me "one such License Identifier" would actually refer to the "GPL-2.0+" part of the line, since that's what actually identifies the license. The other text simply introduces a list of license identifiers. That would then conflict with the rest of the patch that goes on to explicitly state that multiple licenses are allowed.
In other words, I think that text can be confusing. I think you need to add "line", "list" or "set" to the end of the sentence to make it unambiguous.
+If a "SPDX-License-Identifier:" line references more than one Unique +License Identifier, then this means that the respective file can be +used under the terms of either of these licenses, i. e. with
- SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ BSD-3-Clause
+you can chose between GPL-2.0+ and BSD-3-Clause licensing.
Dear Stephen,
In message 52546F78.40300@wwwdotorg.org you wrote:
+Ideally, the license terms of all files in the source tree should be +defined by such License Identifiers; in no case a file can contain +more than one such License Identifier.
I assume "one such License Identifier" here is intended to mean: a source line prefixed with the words "SPDX-License-Identifier:". However, to me "one such License Identifier" would actually refer to the "GPL-2.0+" part of the line, since that's what actually identifies the license. The other text simply introduces a list of license identifiers. That would then conflict with the rest of the patch that goes on to explicitly state that multiple licenses are allowed.
In other words, I think that text can be confusing. I think you need to add "line", "list" or "set" to the end of the sentence to make it unambiguous.
Could you please suggest such a phrase? Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On 10/08/2013 10:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Stephen,
In message 52546F78.40300@wwwdotorg.org you wrote:
+Ideally, the license terms of all files in the source tree should be +defined by such License Identifiers; in no case a file can contain +more than one such License Identifier.
I assume "one such License Identifier" here is intended to mean: a source line prefixed with the words "SPDX-License-Identifier:". However, to me "one such License Identifier" would actually refer to the "GPL-2.0+" part of the line, since that's what actually identifies the license. The other text simply introduces a list of license identifiers. That would then conflict with the rest of the patch that goes on to explicitly state that multiple licenses are allowed.
In other words, I think that text can be confusing. I think you need to add "line", "list" or "set" to the end of the sentence to make it unambiguous.
Could you please suggest such a phrase? Thanks.
Sigh. As I said: In other words, I think that text can be confusing. I think you need to add "line", "list" or "set" to the end of the sentence to make it unambiguous.
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:53:45PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In [1] we discussed how we should deal with dual (or, more generally, multiple) licensed files. Add this to Licenses/README so it's properly documented.
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166518
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
Applied to u-boot/master with an ammendment of "list" as per Stephen's suggestion to the line in question, thanks!
participants (4)
-
Roger Meier -
Stephen Warren -
Tom Rini -
Wolfgang Denk