From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:59:29 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] SPDX: document dual license notation In-Reply-To: <20131009042358.D2ADD380432@gemini.denx.de> References: <047701ce8a46$bcc78820$36569860$@bufferoverflow.ch> <1381262025-10154-1-git-send-email-wd@denx.de> <52546F78.40300@wwwdotorg.org> <20131009042358.D2ADD380432@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <52557D61.7030801@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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.