[Update license 1/1] drivers: clk: Update license for Intel N5X device
trini at konsulko.com
Tue Jul 5 15:55:30 CEST 2022
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 09:48:45AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 7/5/22 5:47 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 10:58, <teik.heng.chong at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Teik Heng Chong <teik.heng.chong at intel.com>
> > >
> > > All the source code of clk-mem-n5x.c and clk-n5x.c are from Intel,
> > > update the license to use both GPL2.0 and BSD-3 Clause because this
> > > copy of code may used for open source and internal project.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Teik Heng Chong <teik.heng.chong at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/clk/altera/clk-mem-n5x.c | 4 ++--
> > > drivers/clk/altera/clk-mem-n5x.h | 4 ++--
> > > drivers/clk/altera/clk-n5x.c | 4 ++--
> > > drivers/clk/altera/clk-n5x.h | 4 ++--
> > > 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/altera/clk-mem-n5x.c b/drivers/clk/altera/clk-mem-n5x.c
> > > index ca44998641..9bbe2cd0ca 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/altera/clk-mem-n5x.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/altera/clk-mem-n5x.c
> > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> > > -// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause
> > +Tom Rini
> > OR is not a license so I think you should drop that word.
> OR is valid in SPDX license identifier expressions
> > Also U-Boot is GPL so seems strange to use a different license for
> > these files. If it was wrong initially, perhaps add a 'Fixes' tag?
> As used in U-Boot, this effectively is an AND (since this code will be
> linked with GPL code). As stated in the commit message, presumably this
> is to allow use in other (BSD-licensed) projects. Tom, do we generally
> allow this sort of thing? Is it OK for someone to come along later and
> change the license back (e.g. make it GPL-only again)?
> I *would* like to see a RB or AB from Siew Chin Lim, since he is the
> original author of this code, but since it is copyright Intel I suppose
> it is fine to leave him out...
Note this already is in master. As it's all Intel commits, I figured
that was good enough for being able to do this kind of change.
As to dual licensing of C code, I'm not in favor of this, overall, no.
I understand why device trees do it. And most of the other in-tree
examples here are places we import other code from and for good reason
(I'm thinking the Android related headers).
In this specific example, I'm going to assume that the rigorous legal
review I know Intel does in some cases would be done here as I'm not
sure how exactly drivers/clk/altera/clk-n5x.c could be used as-is
somewhere else, but I also see how about 90% of it could be shared with
some other project and not reference U-Boot specifics.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the U-Boot