On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:33:30PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c > > > > index 7c2485fe88d8..ea4d59eb8966 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c > > > > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT */ > > > > /************************************************************************** > > > > * > > > > * Copyright (c) 2006-2009 VMware, Inc., Palo Alto, CA., USA > > > > > > Probably a stupid question, but can't you remove the boilerplate license now? > > > > > > > Answering my own question, there are differences between the license in the files > > and the SPDX license [1]. They are: > > - the license in the files adds "(including the next paragraph)" in the second > > paragraph > > - the files have "AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS" in the third paragraph > > - a couple of list items are transposed and changed, but should be fine > > according to [2] > > > > So IANAL, but it seems like you should either add the SPDX and remove the > > boilerplate, or keep the boilerplate and skip the SPDX. > > I am not a lawyer, either, so I asked a couple before starting this little > project... > > GPL and similar license boilerplate can be replaced (and I removed it from > some files in other commits that I'm working on to clean up the files > which originated from VMware), but the MIT license is a template license > and because of that the Copyright notice is actually part of the license > and in order for people to be able to reproduce that, you aren't supposed > to remove the boilerplate. > > There are a number of variations of the MIT license, a bit of googling > seems to indicate that the text that already existed in those files is the > MIT/X-Consortium flavor of the license - that's where the "including the > next paragraph" can be found, see here > https://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7/doc/xorg-docs/License.html > > SPDX appears to consider those licenses equivalent (they have a different, > older flavor of the X11 license as "X11". > > Similarly, the "and/or its suppliers" language seems to have been added by some > project around X (but I wasn't able to pin down where exactly it came from), but > once again the lawyers don't appear to see an issue. > > So in summary > - we need to keep the boilerplate for MIT (but not GPL) > - the text modifications should be OK (and the scanners appear to > recognize the existing text as MIT) > > Not sure this answers your question. Thank you for the awesome summary, it is very helpful! So since the boilerplate has to stay, is there a benefit to adding the SPDX header? Is it just to make scripting/scraping easier? Sean > > /D -- Sean Paul, Software Engineer, Google / Chromium OS _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
