linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Use SPDX-License-Identifier for rockchip devicetree files

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOFm3uHba4kBD81thpxSpDBsDS4Y5m7cN2jfYt_uT5atdSDmqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:45:34 +0100
From:   Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
To:     Klaus Goger <klaus.goger@...obroma-systems.com>
Cc:     linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Romain Perier <romain.perier@...labora.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        Simon Xue <xxm@...k-chips.com>, Liang Chen <cl@...k-chips.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Huibin Hong <huibin.hong@...k-chips.com>,
        David Wu <david.wu@...k-chips.com>,
        Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@...k-chips.com>,
        Jacob Chen <jacob-chen@...wrt.com>,
        William Wu <william.wu@...k-chips.com>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Rocky Hao <rocky.hao@...k-chips.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Pierre-Hugues Husson <phh@....me>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@...k-chips.com>,
        Sugar Zhang <sugar.zhang@...k-chips.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Yao <mark.yao@...k-chips.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
        Andy Yan <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>,
        Caesar Wang <wxt@...k-chips.com>,
        Joseph Chen <chenjh@...k-chips.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Kever Yang <kever.yang@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Use SPDX-License-Identifier for rockchip devicetree files

Klaus,

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Klaus Goger
<klaus.goger@...obroma-systems.com> wrote:
> This patch series replaces all the license text in rockchip devicetree
> files text with a proper SPDX-License-Identifier.
> It follows the guidelines submitted[1] by Thomas Gleixner that are not
> yet merged.
>
> These series also fixes the issue with contradicting statements in most
> licenses. The introduction text claims to be GPL or X11[2] but the
> following verbatim copy of the license is actually a MIT[3] license.
> The X11 license includes a advertise clause and trademark information
> related to the X Consortium. As these X Consortium specfic points are
> irrelevant for us we stick with the actuall license text.
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10091607/
> [2] https://spdx.org/licenses/X11.html
> [3] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html

FWIW, the X11 license name was not always something clearly defined.
SPDX calls it clearly MIT which is the most widely accepted name for
the corresponding text. And this is also what we have in Thomas doc
patches that should be the kernel reference.

Also, as a general note, you want to make sure that such as patch set
is not merged by mistake until you have collected an explicit review
or ack from all the copyright holders involved.

May be calling it an "RFC" could be best until you have these acks?

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne