Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2017, 15:42:48 CET schrieb Philippe Ombredanne: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Heiko St?bner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote: > > Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2017, 14:45:34 CET schrieb Philippe Ombredanne: > >> Klaus, > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Klaus Goger > >> > >> <klaus.goger at theobroma-systems.com> wrote: > >> > This patch series replaces all the license text in rockchip devicetree > >> > files text with a proper SPDX-License-Identifier. > >> > It follows the guidelines submitted[1] by Thomas Gleixner that are not > >> > yet merged. > >> > > >> > These series also fixes the issue with contradicting statements in most > >> > licenses. The introduction text claims to be GPL or X11[2] but the > >> > following verbatim copy of the license is actually a MIT[3] license. > >> > The X11 license includes a advertise clause and trademark information > >> > related to the X Consortium. As these X Consortium specfic points are > >> > irrelevant for us we stick with the actuall license text. > >> > > >> > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10091607/ > >> > [2] https://spdx.org/licenses/X11.html > >> > [3] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html > >> > >> FWIW, the X11 license name was not always something clearly defined. > >> SPDX calls it clearly MIT which is the most widely accepted name for > >> the corresponding text. And this is also what we have in Thomas doc > >> patches that should be the kernel reference. > >> > >> Also, as a general note, you want to make sure that such as patch set > >> is not merged by mistake until you have collected an explicit review > >> or ack from all the copyright holders involved. > > > > Just for my understanding, is it really necessary to get Acks from _all_ > > previous contributors? > > > > I see that Thomas patches moving license texts into the kernel itself do > > not seem to have landed yet, but when the actual license text does _not_ > > change and only its location to a common place inside the kernel sources, > > it feels a bit overkill trying to get Acks from _everybody_ that > > contributed to Rockchip devicetrees for the last 4 years. > > > > If we would actually want to change the license I would definitly feel > > differently, but the license text does not change. > > Well you are technically right. But there is a social and politeness > angle to this too. So may be getting the ack of all contributors is > not always needed, but getting it is best and the right to do and at > least getting for the named copyright holders should be there. > > That's only only my take: leaving aside any technical legal issue, say > I would be on the receiving end as one of the holder or contributors: > I would find it really great and nice to have my ack requested. And I > would be a dork not to give it. So I like to do to others the same I > would appreciate done to me (within reason, as I sometimes shoot > myself in the foot ;) ) Hehe ... I didn't plan on merging this without ample time for people to either ACK or NAK the change, so was planning on keeping to social protocol ;-) . Just the "all" threw me for a loop. And having that as PATCH without RFC also communicates that people should take a look, as RFC patches are often overlooked. As Klaus seems to have included most people that have contributed in the past, I would guess we should receive any existing complaints about that change :-) . So I'll definitly let this simmer for quite a bit and do a best-effort Ack collection. Thanks Heiko
