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

klaus.goger at theobroma-systems.com klaus.goger at theobroma-systems.com
Fri Dec 15 08:27:52 PST 2017

> On 15.12.2017, at 16:20, Heiko Stübner <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 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 ;) )
> 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:


> So I'll definitly let this simmer for quite a bit and do a best-effort Ack 
> collection.


More information about the Linux-rockchip mailing list