Re: [PATCH] LICENSES: adopt Linux-like LICENSES directory structure

[Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>]

On 11/2/19 09:00, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 03:58:03PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> At the moment
>>         grep -R --exclude-dir=build --exclude-dir=.git -P 'SPDX-License-Identifier:' | ack -v 'GPL-2.0'

That last ack should've been a grep. Will fix in v2.

>>
>> shows me 39 non-dually-licensed source code files (SoCFPGA) that have a
>> BSD-3-Clause license _identifier_.
>> There seems to be no barebox BSD-3-Clause license  _text_ however,
>> which runs afoul of the first clause of the license.
>>
>> To account for this and future contributions which are licensed under
>> non-GPL-2.0-but-compatible licenses, create a new LICENSES directory
>> like the one Linux has, where licenses are located.
>>
>> The barebox jumptable exception was imported from U-Boot and mangled
>> by a mass search and replace in a3ffa97f4. A rephrased version
>> of this exception has the SPDX-License-Identifier: u-boot-exception-2.0
>> which I suggest to adopt for barebox as well by referencing it
>> in the COPYING file (with a note about the original project name,
>> so it's understood what's meant by u-boot in the exception text).
> 
> Nice. Thanks for working on this.
> 
>> diff --git a/LICENSES/exceptions/u-boot-exception-2.0 b/LICENSES/exceptions/u-boot-exception-2.0
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..c9b3cd981f51
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/LICENSES/exceptions/u-boot-exception-2.0
>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
>> +
>> +GPL License Exception:
>> +
>> +Even though U-Boot in general is covered by the GPL-2.0/GPL-2.0+,
>> +this does *not* cover the so-called "standalone" applications that
>> +use U-Boot services by means of the jump table provided by U-Boot
>> +exactly for this purpose - this is merely considered normal use of
>> +U-Boot, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
>> +
>> +  The header files "include/image.h" and "arch/*/include/asm/u-boot.h"
>> +define interfaces to U-Boot.  Including these (unmodified) header
>> +files in another file is considered normal use of U-Boot, and does
>> +*not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
> 
> I don't think we need this. barebox doesn't have (and never had since
> the fork from U-Boot) these standalone applications. There is no
> jumptable in barebox. What we do have is modules support, but these are
> not covered by this text.

I can send out a v2 without the exception. Everything else is ok?

> 
> Sascha
> 

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox