On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:49:05PM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-orangepi-pc2.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-orangepi-pc2.dts > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..30639729920d > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-orangepi-pc2.dts > > @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ > > +/* > > + * Copyright (C) 2016 ARM Ltd. > > + * > > + * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms > > + * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual > > + * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a > > + * whole. > > I didn't catch any sort of announcement of it, but it seems as if we've > started using SPDX license identifiers in dts files. Thus you can simply > include the line > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > after the copyright notice and omit the license notices themselves. Even > though the comment refers to "the X11 license", the license text matches that > associated with the MIT license identifier [1] rather than that of the X11 > license [2]. The same goes for patch 5/6. > > [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html#licenseText > [2] https://spdx.org/licenses/X11.html#licenseText For my opinion on the matter, see this mail from RMK: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-February/490649.html If people want to use it, I'm okay with that, but I really don't want to actively enforce it during the reviews. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
