[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] nfs: convert supported_nfs_versions bitfield to an enum

From: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] nfs: convert supported_nfs_versions bitfield to an enum
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:53:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAh8qsxgdDwdP9125FZet4MbqN7a=Rf_rMDOrgDLhm82CqBXpw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181030084631.8688424004C@gemini.denx.de>

Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> schrieb am Di., 30. Okt. 2018, 09:46:

> Dear Joe,
>
> In message <CANr=Z=a1+UFV+gU=3a5wPz7UpH-mzsvB-+FZd=
> LD8JTXR3gRGg at mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > As the maintainer of lwIP, I already have thought about this more than
> > > once. My main concern however was the license (lwIP is BSD style) and
> >
> > Yes, the license is a concern. I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone can
> > comment on what our options are here. Wolfgang? Tom?
>
> IANAL...
>
> Fact is, we already have some 80+ source files in U-Boot which are
> covered by the BSD-3-Clause license.  Apparently there are also
> statements from the FSF that BSD-3-Clause is considered compatible
> with GPLv2.
>
> My _personal_ opinion is that I try to avoid BSD-3-Clause because of
> both the:
>
>         2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>            copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
>            following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other
>            materials provided with the distribution.
>
> and the
>
>         3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or
>            promote products derived from this software without
>            specific prior written permission.
>
> clauses.
>
> The former forces me to add "some text" to all documentation, and
> the latter forbids me to say who wrote the code as this might be
> considered promotion of the product.  Both are obligations I have
> to adhere to, while GPL clearly says "You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
> herein."  So in my opinion BSD-3-Clause should be avoided - but
> then, this is just my $0.02 - YMMV.
>
> I take chances to have lwIP relicenced under a dual license (GPLv2
> OR BSD-3-Clause) are epsilon?
>

Given that I am not the only author but lwIP has a long history of
contributors, I don't know how I should handle such a license change...

Simon