Hi Greg, hi Laurent, > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 15 August 2019 20:05 > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] drm: Rename drm_bridge_timings to drm_timings > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:06:41PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:53:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 02:31:26PM +0000, Fabrizio Castro wrote: > > > > On 15 August 2019 15:15, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:04:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:18:38PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Fabrizio, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (CC'ing Greg as the architect of the SPDX move) > > > > > > > > > > > > _one of_, not the one that did the most of he work, that would be Thomas :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:04:27PM +0100, Fabrizio Castro wrote: > > > > > > > > The information represented by drm_bridge_timings is also > > > > > > > > needed by panels, therefore rename drm_bridge_timings to > > > > > > > > drm_timings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg43271.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > v1->v2: > > > > > > > > * new patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have copied the license from include/drm/drm_bridge.h as that's > > > > > > > > where the struct originally came from. What's the right SPDX license > > > > > > > > to use in this case? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg, any idea on how we should handle this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ugh, what lunacy. But drm_bridge.h is NOT under any "public domain" > > > > > > license, so why is that an issue here? This looks like a "normal" bsd 3 > > > > > > clause license to me, right? > > > > > > > > > > You're right, I overread part of the text in drm_bridge.h, it seems to > > > > > indeed be covered by a BSD 3 clause license. Sorry for the noise. > > > > > > > > Mmm... This is the template for the BSD-3-Clause: > > > > > > > > Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER> > > > > All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following > conditions are met: > > > > > > > > Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > > > Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in > the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > > > Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products > derived from this software without specific prior written permission. > > > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED > WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR > PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, > INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF > SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY > THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY > WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > > > > > > > > And this is the license coming from include/drm/drm_bridge.h: > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * Copyright (c) 2016 Intel Corporation > > > > * > > > > * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its > > > > * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that > > > > * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright > > > > * notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and > > > > * that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or > > > > * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, > > > > * written prior permission. The copyright holders make no representations > > > > * about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as > > > > * is" without express or implied warranty. > > > > * > > > > * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, > > > > * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO > > > > * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR > > > > * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, > > > > * DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER > > > > * TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE > > > > * OF THIS SOFTWARE. > > > > */ > > > > > > > > Perhaps I am completely wrong here, and I am not a lawyer, but the wording seems different enough to me... > > > > I am happy to use "BSD-3-Clause" though. Laurent please double check. > > > > > > Please talk to your lawyers about this, we are not them... > > > > I don't think that's fair though. Fabrizio is reworking kernel code, and > > as part of that wondered what SPDX tag to apply to a new file that > > contains code moved from an existing file that has no SPDX tag, but the > > above copyright notice. He's not trying to change a license, or reword > > it. As SPDX is the preferred way of expressing licenses in the kernel, > > he legitimately asked for help, and I think we should provide an > > official answer for this (which could be not to use SPDX but copy the > > license text). > > Ah, ok, that makes more sense, didn't realize that. > > Fabrizio, just copy the license text as-is to the new file if you are > copying from an existing one. For all of these "we have to read the > text" files that are left in the kernel, we still have a ways to go to > convert them. But, if you leave the text identical, when we match one > and fix it, the tools will catch the other identical ones as well, so > that does not create any extra work. > > hope this helps, It does! Thank you both guys! Cheers, Fab > > greg k-h
