On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:49:57PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:06:02PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: >> >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Priit Laes <plaes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > SMARC-sAMX6i is a SMARC (Smart Mobility Architecture) compliant >> >> > module. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Priit Laes <plaes@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> > --- >> >> > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi | 434 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> > 1 file changed, 434 insertions(+) >> >> > create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi >> >> > >> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi >> >> > new file mode 100644 >> >> > index 0000000..e3d7a35 >> >> > --- /dev/null >> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi >> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,434 @@ >> >> > +/* >> >> > + * Copyright 2017 Priit Laes <plaes@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> > + * >> >> > + * Based on initial work by Nikita Yushchenko <nyushchenko at dev.rtsoft.ru> >> >> > + * >> >> > + * 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. >> >> > + * >> >> > + * a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or >> >> > + * modify it 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. >> >> > + * >> >> > + * This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, >> >> > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >> >> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the >> >> > + * GNU General Public License for more details. >> >> > + * >> >> > + * Or, alternatively, >> >> > + * >> >> > + * b) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person >> >> > + * obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation >> >> > + * files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without >> >> > + * restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, >> >> > + * copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or >> >> > + * sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the >> >> > + * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following >> >> > + * conditions: >> >> > + * >> >> > + * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be >> >> > + * included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. >> >> > + * >> >> > + * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, >> >> > + * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES >> >> > + * OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND >> >> > + * NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT >> >> > + * HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, >> >> > + * WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING >> >> > + * FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR >> >> > + * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. >> >> >> >> Use SPDX tags here: >> >> >> >> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) >> >> >> >> While it says X11, this is really MIT license text. >> > >> > No. Read the FSF's page on licenses: >> > >> > X11 License (#X11License) >> > ... >> > This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is >> > misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software. >> > >> > Never use the term "MIT license", it's ambiguous, and I doubt that such >> > a term (given the above) would stand up in a court of law as identifying >> > any particular license. >> >> The SPDX tags have a very exact, documented meaning. That's the point. >> X11 means this[1]. MIT means this[2]. > > Meanwhile, the FSF appears to disagree, so this creates work for > solicitors (or lawyers if you're in the US) to have a field day. > > Also, if it was _this_ easy, we would have included a web URL to > point at the license text since 1992 - but we haven't because it's > a level of indirection that brings with it uncertainty. > > Now, you could say "oh we worship the LF, we trust them, they're > never going to do anything stupid, let's trust SPDX to always > stay the same and exist" but IMHO that's letting emotional > judgement cloud the legal issue. > > There's also very little discussion on spdx.org about the legal > side of this stuff. > > So, to me, this spdx stuff looks like a programmers solution to a > legal problem, looks completely untested legally, and goes against > recommended practices (which are to include the copyright plus the > actual notice of intent - not copyright plus a level of indirection.) > > As I said above, if it was this easy, we'd have been linking to > (eg) fsf.org's copies of license texts for years or similar. > > Now, with the FSF.org's different stance on X11 vs MIT compared > to spdx.org identifying "MIT" differently, I suspect that there > is ample room here for solicitors/lawyers to make a great deal > of cash. > > Another point here is... if LF and/or SPDX.org goes belly-up, or > becomes unaccessible, eg, spdx.org's name registration expires and > gets taken over by a rogue party - at that point, this SPDX stuff > can mean _anything_. > > I do hope those who you've been recommending to use SPDX tags stop > and think about it, and don't blindly follow what you're suggesting. So do we have a consensus on this topic? Right now SPDX id is rarely used in Linux kernel. A grep of SPDX in the source code only shows around 10 appearances. Whether or not changing to promote the usage of SPDX id in the future seems to be a good topic for broader discussion. And it would be good to have a kernel wide guideline as a result. I'm adding Linus Torvalds to the recipient, and hope he can provide some of his insight to the issue. Regards, Leo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
