On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 03:39:14PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:22:09PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 03:06:08PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:11:53PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > Most of media Kconfig/Makefile files already has SPDX, > > > > but there are a few ones still missing. Add it to them. > > > > > > I think it's a good idea to state the license of each source file, the > > > patch looks fine to me. I've however been thinking about licenses for > > > build system files recently, and I'll hijack this thread a bit to ask a > > > question :-) > > > > > > For a project like the Linux kernel, and especially for subsystems that > > > are covered by a single license, the choice is easy, we can apply the > > > same license to the build files. However, for a project that contains > > > components covered by different licenses (such as, for instance, an LGPL > > > library, a GPL application and a BSD plugin), how should the license > > > covering the build system files be selected ? I searched a bit for > > > guidance on this topic, and couldn't find much. > > > > By "default" if there is no license on a file in the kernel tree, it > > falls under the GPLv2 license and we should explicity state it, like > > this patch does. > > > > So this is fine, but if you want to license the build files some other > > way, that's good too, but do so when you add them to the tree, not at > > some later time when it could cause confusion :) > > Thanks for your answer. I was hijacking the thread a little bit, the > question wasn't related to the kernel, but in this case to libcamera. > We've been wondering how to pick licenses for build files there, and I > thought fellow kernel developers may have valuable input on this topic. I would make the files the same license as your project overall is to make things simpler for everyone involved :) thanks, greg k-h
