license: intial spdx #1507
license: intial spdx #1507
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Use SPDX License identifier in files that already contain BSD-3-Clause license. Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Janusz Jankowski <janusz.jankowski@linux.intel.com>
|
@lgirdwood Have no license. Are they made by Intel as wrapper to -hsw/-bdw files form Tensilica or just tensilica files? I don't know how their |
|
@jajanusz they should have same copyright as APL versions, both derived from same place and generated by Intel. |
| * Author: Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com> | ||
| * Keyon Jie <yang.jie@linux.intel.com> | ||
| */ | ||
| // SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we changing a license? What is the reason why this was GPL in the first place?
To me the change of license should be a separate PR that's well tracked, not hidden in a script-based code reshuffling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not hidden. I explicitly mentioned it in PR description and wrote who needs to agree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
well the net result is that we merged a PR that changes the license without explicit agreement from one of the authors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@plbossart original GPL was an error (I probably copy and pasted the wrong licence from somewhere), it should be BSD.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@plbossart @lgirdwood Even if it was mistake, the people that were adding code to these files were adding them under GPL license (because in the moment of contribution there was GPL license), so you still need consent from them imho. Just ask @dbaluta for agreement to be safe. He can do it now even if it's already merged, and if he disagrees we can revert this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dbaluta let us know if you disagree with BSD for rimage and we can revert that part.
|
I agree with the license change. Sorry for the late answer, I was in vacation :). One more thing: lets always add the explanation of why the changes are needed in the commit message not in github PR cover letter (PR cover letter doesn't stay in git history). |
5 participants
As discussed in #1458
It covers all our FW sources (c/h/S) - 3rd party files (f.e. from Tensilica) are not changed.
It add identifiers to Perl/Python/Shell scripts and Kconfig files.
I don't know if m4 and Matlab should have them. Should I add them? It's not a big deal, I'm just not sure if we have copyrights to all of them.
I used C-style comments in .S files, however they are mixed in kernel repo, so look like there is no clear convention.
This PR changes license of rimage from GPL to BSD, so @dbaluta needs to agree with that change as he is also author in files that were GPL-licensed.
I added missing licenses on behalf of Intel employees.
This closes #1458, closes #1497, closes #1499, closes #1500