| Message ID | 1381262025-10154-1-git-send-email-wd@denx.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
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!
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].
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(+)