[U-Boot] [PATCH] nand_util.c: Correct licensing

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:36:23PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Tom Rini,
> 
> In message <1383164489-29450-1-git-send-email-trini at ti.com> you wrote:
> > This file is GPL-2.0 with Freescale granting rights for GPL-2.0+.  This
> > part was dropped by accident in the SPDX updates.
> 
> Sorry, but this doesn't work.
> 
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c
> > @@ -14,7 +14,14 @@
> >   * Copyright (C) 2008 Nokia Corporation: drop_ffs() function by
> >   * Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> from mtd-utils
> >   *
> > - * SPDX-License-Identifier:	GPL-2.0+
> > + * Copyright 2010 Freescale Semiconductor
> > + * The portions of this file whose copyright is held by Freescale and which
> > + * are not considered a derived work of GPL v2-only code may be distributed
> > + * and/or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> > + * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> > + * License, or (at your option) any later version.
> > + *
> > + * SPDX-License-Identifier:	GPL-2.0
> 
> The idea of the Licnese IDs is that you just grep for these lines to
> produce proper information about the license status of the file.
> Here, the special clause would be totally missed.
> 
> I don't know of any (even halfway) established method to express such
> a situation where different licenses apply to certain parts of a file
> in terms of Lincese IDs.  The only clean way to solve this I can think
> of at this time is to define a new License ID (GPL-2.0-FSL+ ?) and
> move this explanation to a file in the Licenses/ directory.
> 
> But I still see a pretty serious problem with the fact that the text
> is completely unspecific - or do we have any clear understanding for
> which exact parts of the file the "copyright is held by Freescale and
> which are not considered a derived work of GPL v2-only code" ?
> 
> We need to know exactly the lines of code this applies to; otherwise I
> think the only safe way to solve this issue is by licensing the whole
> file as GPL-2.0.

I'd be fine with this solution, really (and calling common/cmd_nand.c
which is missing a specific tag but also has the Freescale bit) as
GPL-2.0 as well.  I'll shoot that out in the morning then, assuming no
one disagrees with that idea.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20131030/ba3f2623/attachment.pgp>