lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next ] net: mscc: Add SPDX identifier
From
Date
On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 09:52 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 17/05/2018 18:13:25-0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-05-17 at 21:39 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > On 17/05/2018 12:28:59-0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2018-05-17 at 21:23 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > > > ocelot_qsys.h is missing the SPDX identfier, fix that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> > > >
> > > > Only the copyright holders should ideally be modifying
> > > > these and also removing other license content.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, what's the real intent here?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, if you have a look, I submitted that file this cycle and it is the
> > > only one that doesn't have the proper SPDX identifier. This is a mistake
> > > I'm fixing.
> >
> > Just because you submitted it does not mean you
> > are the copyright holder.
> >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_qsys.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot_qsys.h
> > > >
> > > > []
> > > > > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) */
> > > >
> > > > GPL 2.0+ or 2.0?
> > > >
> > >
> > > 2.0
> >
> > How do you know that?
> >
>
> The fact is that it should have been submitted with the SPDX identifier
> to be consistent with the rest of the driver. If you can't trust me on
> that, then, you can't probably trust anyone submitting anything new
> driver to the kernel.

Silly.

> I still don't understand why you are making an issue out of this.

Correctness in licensing text is important.

> Because my email address doesn't match the copyright holder's name
> doesn't mean I'm not allowed to fix my own mistake.

Mostly, it's a question of what the original
license is. As far as I can tell, microsemi
publishes their code only under an MIT license.

The MIT license does allow sublicensing, so
it does seem you can choose what additional
license restrictions you can assert as long
as the original MIT license is also followed.

cheers, Joe


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-18 10:15    [W:0.039 / U:1.604 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site