All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net>, maxime.ripard@bootlin.com
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v2] arm: sun4i: Add support for Pengpod 1000 tablet
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:28:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d041794-ba90-a9a6-0886-0ca18dab62b9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e2787b2a-230d-ea3c-89b9-316ddcd20f67@settrans.net>

Hi,

On 05-06-18 20:18, Bob Ham wrote:
> On 05/06/18 15:50, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 06:33:02PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
>>> On 04/06/18 09:13, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:03:13PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
>>>
>>>>> + * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
>>>>> + * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
>>>>> + * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
>>>>> + * whole.
>>>
>>>>> + *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>>>>> + *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>>>
>>>> And this is redundant with the SPDX header.
>>>
>>> The X11 license notice states explicitly that the notice has to be
>>> included in the file.  Wouldn't removing it be a violation of the license?
>>
>> The SPDX header is explicitly here to remove the license text and
>> create a tag that is in a indirect reference to the license text in
>> LICENSES. It's not going away.
> 
> Well, the top bit that I quoted above says that the licenses refer to
> only that one file in particular and not the project as a whole.  Then
> the X11 license states that the notice can't be removed from 'this
> software and associated documentation files (the "Software")' which
> would seem to refer to the single file.  Therefore, removing the notice
> from the single file and replacing it with an SPDX header would seem to
> violate the license.
> 
> It's a fine point but it makes me nervous.  I originally based my .dts
> on sun4i-a10-inet1.dts.  I've CC'd the original copyright holder, Hans
> de Goede.  Hans, are you willing to give permission for the license
> notice to be replaced with just an SPDX header indicating the dual
> licensing?

Yes that is fine by me and you've my permission to switch to using
just the SPDX header.

FWIW I do not believe the "can't be removed from 'this software and
associated documentation files (the "Software")'" language
applies to the software as a whole and not individual files.

> While we're at it, there are a number of other files with the same
> license text.  Hans, are you prepared to give permission for your other
> license notices to be replaced with SPDX headers?

Yes you may make the same change to all files with my copyright.

Regards,

Hans


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Bob Ham <rah-2mWpNWY8JZLk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>,
	maxime.ripard-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens-jdAy2FN1RRM@public.gmane.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
	devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org,
	linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: sun4i: Add support for Pengpod 1000 tablet
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:28:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d041794-ba90-a9a6-0886-0ca18dab62b9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e2787b2a-230d-ea3c-89b9-316ddcd20f67-2mWpNWY8JZLk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>

Hi,

On 05-06-18 20:18, Bob Ham wrote:
> On 05/06/18 15:50, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 06:33:02PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
>>> On 04/06/18 09:13, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:03:13PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
>>>
>>>>> + * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
>>>>> + * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
>>>>> + * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
>>>>> + * whole.
>>>
>>>>> + *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>>>>> + *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>>>
>>>> And this is redundant with the SPDX header.
>>>
>>> The X11 license notice states explicitly that the notice has to be
>>> included in the file.  Wouldn't removing it be a violation of the license?
>>
>> The SPDX header is explicitly here to remove the license text and
>> create a tag that is in a indirect reference to the license text in
>> LICENSES. It's not going away.
> 
> Well, the top bit that I quoted above says that the licenses refer to
> only that one file in particular and not the project as a whole.  Then
> the X11 license states that the notice can't be removed from 'this
> software and associated documentation files (the "Software")' which
> would seem to refer to the single file.  Therefore, removing the notice
> from the single file and replacing it with an SPDX header would seem to
> violate the license.
> 
> It's a fine point but it makes me nervous.  I originally based my .dts
> on sun4i-a10-inet1.dts.  I've CC'd the original copyright holder, Hans
> de Goede.  Hans, are you willing to give permission for the license
> notice to be replaced with just an SPDX header indicating the dual
> licensing?

Yes that is fine by me and you've my permission to switch to using
just the SPDX header.

FWIW I do not believe the "can't be removed from 'this software and
associated documentation files (the "Software")'" language
applies to the software as a whole and not individual files.

> While we're at it, there are a number of other files with the same
> license text.  Hans, are you prepared to give permission for your other
> license notices to be replaced with SPDX headers?

Yes you may make the same change to all files with my copyright.

Regards,

Hans

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: hdegoede@redhat.com (Hans de Goede)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v2] arm: sun4i: Add support for Pengpod 1000 tablet
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:28:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d041794-ba90-a9a6-0886-0ca18dab62b9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e2787b2a-230d-ea3c-89b9-316ddcd20f67@settrans.net>

Hi,

On 05-06-18 20:18, Bob Ham wrote:
> On 05/06/18 15:50, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 06:33:02PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
>>> On 04/06/18 09:13, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:03:13PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
>>>
>>>>> + * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
>>>>> + * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
>>>>> + * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
>>>>> + * whole.
>>>
>>>>> + *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>>>>> + *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>>>
>>>> And this is redundant with the SPDX header.
>>>
>>> The X11 license notice states explicitly that the notice has to be
>>> included in the file.  Wouldn't removing it be a violation of the license?
>>
>> The SPDX header is explicitly here to remove the license text and
>> create a tag that is in a indirect reference to the license text in
>> LICENSES. It's not going away.
> 
> Well, the top bit that I quoted above says that the licenses refer to
> only that one file in particular and not the project as a whole.  Then
> the X11 license states that the notice can't be removed from 'this
> software and associated documentation files (the "Software")' which
> would seem to refer to the single file.  Therefore, removing the notice
> from the single file and replacing it with an SPDX header would seem to
> violate the license.
> 
> It's a fine point but it makes me nervous.  I originally based my .dts
> on sun4i-a10-inet1.dts.  I've CC'd the original copyright holder, Hans
> de Goede.  Hans, are you willing to give permission for the license
> notice to be replaced with just an SPDX header indicating the dual
> licensing?

Yes that is fine by me and you've my permission to switch to using
just the SPDX header.

FWIW I do not believe the "can't be removed from 'this software and
associated documentation files (the "Software")'" language
applies to the software as a whole and not individual files.

> While we're at it, there are a number of other files with the same
> license text.  Hans, are you prepared to give permission for your other
> license notices to be replaced with SPDX headers?

Yes you may make the same change to all files with my copyright.

Regards,

Hans

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-13  7:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-02 16:03 [PATCH v2] arm: sun4i: Add support for Pengpod 1000 tablet Bob Ham
2018-06-02 16:03 ` Bob Ham
2018-06-02 16:03 ` Bob Ham
2018-06-04  8:13 ` Maxime Ripard
2018-06-04  8:13   ` Maxime Ripard
2018-06-04  8:13   ` Maxime Ripard
2018-06-04 17:33   ` Bob Ham
2018-06-04 17:33     ` Bob Ham
2018-06-04 17:33     ` Bob Ham
2018-06-05 14:50     ` Maxime Ripard
2018-06-05 14:50       ` Maxime Ripard
2018-06-05 14:50       ` Maxime Ripard
2018-06-05 18:18       ` [linux-sunxi] " Bob Ham
2018-06-05 18:18         ` Bob Ham
2018-06-05 18:18         ` Bob Ham
2018-06-13  7:28         ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2018-06-13  7:28           ` [linux-sunxi] " Hans de Goede
2018-06-13  7:28           ` Hans de Goede
2018-06-13  9:53           ` [linux-sunxi] " Bob Ham
2018-06-13  9:53             ` Bob Ham
2018-06-13  9:53             ` Bob Ham

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4d041794-ba90-a9a6-0886-0ca18dab62b9@redhat.com \
    --to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maxime.ripard@bootlin.com \
    --cc=rah@settrans.net \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=wens@csie.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.