From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBC3C004E4 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5019520891 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:28:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5019520891 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933822AbeFMH2U (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:28:20 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:54519 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933912AbeFMH2S (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:28:18 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id o13-v6so2850992wmf.4 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:28:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bYlePa8JYKlNPl+mcjIKhGlSpKnCP0N61O+RkXVhDOo=; b=iJYTwegrtkN5Ri08g6aPOdBfIVuzqYQ2rYu+UMZxAQqeGeZNhQMNGcabdVuTJ+ChS5 +PqYRjb4e7nYstiicfprLjvuLKqn3e5tQAtVOaAnGwSrXl95SvdbKPmBWnhO3LeZYsIt r0vtz+9osWQ8aVSHGrQa3XX+5CheEISn8oEK46Uq8brWvKb5sSM41ftNEmVwDVvOmLOg O3wWVIRRpB5yis13Snz03jnhz/pi1rXo7RACZYaS5Z+tRH705y/B8TuVrjuoyriAiqVV 5TRkYA/bBUBrOv1dRBQDFUaBrmgSsFbPWa2vKBlEUqjka4uveLs7n/VPlhz5E8wdWafI Ce/A== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1HK6wsqCDZCDu7YFhohYLAES/CetFJoduRV7xfBSy5saTmRySn fWNFVktrrvtwaDQ0lZbndHKaW4mKnFo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLgR8J02nutmU6BdiS1SboNh4ECtp5r7ms9UHMB+gezmWNtYtbQ+5pz0J5WE9K371AWWbdsZQ== X-Received: by 2002:a50:9772:: with SMTP id d47-v6mr2961482edb.174.1528874897352; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shalem.localdomain (546A5441.cm-12-3b.dynamic.ziggo.nl. [84.106.84.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x15-v6sm1046744edd.90.2018.06.13.00.28.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v2] arm: sun4i: Add support for Pengpod 1000 tablet To: Bob Ham , maxime.ripard@bootlin.com Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20180602160313.26763-1-rah@settrans.net> <20180604081302.hcn7j36gt6xeyquq@flea> <313a74ea-0be6-cff1-6b2f-06a4b0b7ba8d@settrans.net> <20180605145038.qptdlcphdbnw6jyg@flea> From: Hans de Goede Message-ID: <4d041794-ba90-a9a6-0886-0ca18dab62b9@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:28:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: sun4i: Add support for Pengpod 1000 tablet Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:28:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4d041794-ba90-a9a6-0886-0ca18dab62b9@redhat.com> References: <20180602160313.26763-1-rah@settrans.net> <20180604081302.hcn7j36gt6xeyquq@flea> <313a74ea-0be6-cff1-6b2f-06a4b0b7ba8d@settrans.net> <20180605145038.qptdlcphdbnw6jyg@flea> Reply-To: hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Return-path: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Bob Ham , maxime.ripard-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , 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 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hdegoede@redhat.com (Hans de Goede) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:28:16 +0200 Subject: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v2] arm: sun4i: Add support for Pengpod 1000 tablet In-Reply-To: References: <20180602160313.26763-1-rah@settrans.net> <20180604081302.hcn7j36gt6xeyquq@flea> <313a74ea-0be6-cff1-6b2f-06a4b0b7ba8d@settrans.net> <20180605145038.qptdlcphdbnw6jyg@flea> Message-ID: <4d041794-ba90-a9a6-0886-0ca18dab62b9@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.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