> On 15.12.2017, at 16:20, Heiko St?bner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote: > > 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 :-) . I added the full list from the get_maintainers script. Some of the original authors got dropped as the current contribution level dropped below the scripts limit. I added the missing email addresses from the copyright headers to the CC list. Convenience links to the original patches for the added people: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10114845/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10114843/ > So I'll definitly let this simmer for quite a bit and do a best-effort Ack > collection. Thanks, Klaus
