RE: [PATCH v2 3/9] drm: Rename drm_bridge_timings to drm_timings

[Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@bp.renesas.com>]

Hi Greg, hi Laurent,

> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: 15 August 2019 20:05
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] drm: Rename drm_bridge_timings to drm_timings
> 
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:06:41PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:53:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 02:31:26PM +0000, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
> > > > On 15 August 2019 15:15, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:04:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:18:38PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Fabrizio,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (CC'ing Greg as the architect of the SPDX move)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _one of_, not the one that did the most of he work, that would be Thomas :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:04:27PM +0100, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
> > > > > > > > The information represented by drm_bridge_timings is also
> > > > > > > > needed by panels, therefore rename drm_bridge_timings to
> > > > > > > > drm_timings.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@bp.renesas.com>
> > > > > > > > Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg43271.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > v1->v2:
> > > > > > > > * new patch
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have copied the license from include/drm/drm_bridge.h as that's
> > > > > > > > where the struct originally came from. What's the right SPDX license
> > > > > > > > to use in this case?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Greg, any idea on how we should handle this ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ugh, what lunacy.  But drm_bridge.h is NOT under any "public domain"
> > > > > > license, so why is that an issue here?  This looks like a "normal" bsd 3
> > > > > > clause license to me, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right, I overread part of the text in drm_bridge.h, it seems to
> > > > > indeed be covered by a BSD 3 clause license. Sorry for the noise.
> > > >
> > > > Mmm... This is the template for the BSD-3-Clause:
> > > >
> > > > Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
> > > > All rights reserved.
> > > >
> > > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following
> conditions are met:
> > > >
> > > > Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > > > 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.
> > > > Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
> derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
> > > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
> SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
> THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY
> WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> > > >
> > > > And this is the license coming from include/drm/drm_bridge.h:
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > >  * Copyright (c) 2016 Intel Corporation
> > > >  *
> > > >  * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its
> > > >  * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that
> > > >  * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright
> > > >  * notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and
> > > >  * that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or
> > > >  * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific,
> > > >  * written prior permission.  The copyright holders make no representations
> > > >  * about the suitability of this software for any purpose.  It is provided "as
> > > >  * is" without express or implied warranty.
> > > >  *
> > > >  * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE,
> > > >  * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO
> > > >  * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
> > > >  * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE,
> > > >  * DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
> > > >  * TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE
> > > >  * OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> > > >  */
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps I am completely wrong here, and I am not a lawyer, but the wording seems different enough to me...
> > > > I am happy to use "BSD-3-Clause" though. Laurent please double check.
> > >
> > > Please talk to your lawyers about this, we are not them...
> >
> > I don't think that's fair though. Fabrizio is reworking kernel code, and
> > as part of that wondered what SPDX tag to apply to a new file that
> > contains code moved from an existing file that has no SPDX tag, but the
> > above copyright notice. He's not trying to change a license, or reword
> > it. As SPDX is the preferred way of expressing licenses in the kernel,
> > he legitimately asked for help, and I think we should provide an
> > official answer for this (which could be not to use SPDX but copy the
> > license text).
> 
> Ah, ok, that makes more sense, didn't realize that.
> 
> Fabrizio, just copy the license text as-is to the new file if you are
> copying from an existing one.  For all of these "we have to read the
> text" files that are left in the kernel, we still have a ways to go to
> convert them.  But, if you leave the text identical, when we match one
> and fix it, the tools will catch the other identical ones as well, so
> that does not create any extra work.
> 
> hope this helps,

It does! Thank you both guys!

Cheers,
Fab

> 
> greg k-h