[PATCH 0/2] Use SPDX-License-Identifier for rockchip devicetree files

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Heiko Stübner <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 ;) )

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne