[U-Boot] dual licensed files

[U-Boot] dual licensed files

[Roger Meier]

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

[U-Boot] dual licensed files

[Wolfgang Denk]

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

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"I've seen it. It's rubbish."          - Marvin the Paranoid Android

[U-Boot] [PATCH] SPDX: document dual license notation

[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].
 
-- 
1.8.3.1

[U-Boot] [PATCH] SPDX: document dual license notation

[Stephen Warren]

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.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] SPDX: document dual license notation

[Wolfgang Denk]

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

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Bus error -- driver executed.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] SPDX: document dual license notation

[Stephen Warren]

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.

[U-Boot] SPDX: document dual license notation

[Tom Rini]

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!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20131014/d0a12d24/attachment.pgp>