> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:13 PM > To: Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@xxxxxxx>; Ruxandra Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu > <ruxandra.radulescu@xxxxxxx>; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; > stuyoder@xxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx; Roy Pledge > <roy.pledge@xxxxxxx>; Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@xxxxxxx>; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@xxxxxxx>; Nipun Gupta > <nipun.gupta@xxxxxxx>; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] staging: fsl-mc: Add SPDX license identifiers > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:19:05PM +0200, Bogdan Purcareata wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpbp-cmd.h b/drivers/staging/fsl- > mc/bus/dpbp-cmd.h > > index 5904836..1ac8ec6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpbp-cmd.h > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpbp-cmd.h > > @@ -1,33 +1,8 @@ > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause) */ > > Hm, I don't think you want to do that. How can a Linux driver subsytem > that wraps calls to the kernel's driver core (which are GPL-only), be > accessed by BSD-3 code? For this particular file, the original license was dual GPL/BSD. The patch removes the license text and adds an equivalent SPDX tag. > If I didn't know any better, I would think you were trying to create a > "GPL Condom" here :) > > Anyway, why all of the BSD-3 stuff here? That makes no sense for kernel > code at all, and this is a relicensing of the file, have you gotten > legal approval of everyone that has modified the file while it was under > the GPL-v2 only text to be able to change it to BSD-3 as well? Previous to this patch, the files under drivers/staging/fsl-mc/ use a combination of GPL-2.0 and (GPL-2.0+ / BSD-3-Clause) licenses (expressed by the full license text). The original intent was to have an uniform dual license for all files. Before making this change, I have consulted the other current contributors, but based on your feedback, we think it's best to keep the current licenses. > Careful, this is a _VERY_ tricky thing to do right. I need a > signed-off-by on this type of patch from your legal council to ensure > that they know exactly what you are doing, and have reviewed it > properly, before I can take it. > > Hint, stick to the existing license in the files, it makes more sense, > you are not going to be taking this code out of Linux and putting it > anywhere. I will send a v2 keeping the existing license for each file - removing the full license text and adding a SPDX tag. This way there will be no change from a legal standpoint. Thank you for the feedback! Bogdan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
