On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:33:30PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c index 7c2485fe88d8..ea4d59eb8966 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT */ /**************************************************************************
- Copyright (c) 2006-2009 VMware, Inc., Palo Alto, CA., USA
Probably a stupid question, but can't you remove the boilerplate license now?
Answering my own question, there are differences between the license in the files and the SPDX license [1]. They are:
- the license in the files adds "(including the next paragraph)" in the second paragraph
- the files have "AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS" in the third paragraph
- a couple of list items are transposed and changed, but should be fine according to [2]
So IANAL, but it seems like you should either add the SPDX and remove the boilerplate, or keep the boilerplate and skip the SPDX.
I am not a lawyer, either, so I asked a couple before starting this little project...
GPL and similar license boilerplate can be replaced (and I removed it from some files in other commits that I'm working on to clean up the files which originated from VMware), but the MIT license is a template license and because of that the Copyright notice is actually part of the license and in order for people to be able to reproduce that, you aren't supposed to remove the boilerplate.
There are a number of variations of the MIT license, a bit of googling seems to indicate that the text that already existed in those files is the MIT/X-Consortium flavor of the license - that's where the "including the next paragraph" can be found, see here https://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7/doc/xorg-docs/License.html
SPDX appears to consider those licenses equivalent (they have a different, older flavor of the X11 license as "X11".
Similarly, the "and/or its suppliers" language seems to have been added by some project around X (but I wasn't able to pin down where exactly it came from), but once again the lawyers don't appear to see an issue.
So in summary
- we need to keep the boilerplate for MIT (but not GPL)
- the text modifications should be OK (and the scanners appear to recognize the existing text as MIT)
Not sure this answers your question.
Thank you for the awesome summary, it is very helpful! So since the boilerplate has to stay, is there a benefit to adding the SPDX header? Is it just to make scripting/scraping easier?
Sean
/D
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:46:20AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
Thank you for the awesome summary, it is very helpful! So since the boilerplate has to stay, is there a benefit to adding the SPDX header? Is it just to make scripting/scraping easier?
Actually, the header now adds the correct information. Without the header it is not clear that these files are supposed to be dual licensed under MIT or GPL-2.
And yes, it of course simplifies tooling as well, which is why there is a push to get these headers broadly added to many open source projects.
/D
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Dirk Hohndel dirk@hohndel.org wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:46:20AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
Thank you for the awesome summary, it is very helpful! So since the boilerplate has to stay, is there a benefit to adding the SPDX header? Is it just to make scripting/scraping easier?
Actually, the header now adds the correct information. Without the header it is not clear that these files are supposed to be dual licensed under MIT or GPL-2.
Should these (or any of the drm drivers for that matter) be dual licensed or just MIT? The code is MIT.
Alex
And yes, it of course simplifies tooling as well, which is why there is a push to get these headers broadly added to many open source projects.
/D _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On May 8, 2018, at 11:52 PM, Alex Deucher alexdeucher@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Dirk Hohndel dirk@hohndel.org wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:46:20AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
Thank you for the awesome summary, it is very helpful! So since the boilerplate has to stay, is there a benefit to adding the SPDX header? Is it just to make scripting/scraping easier?
Actually, the header now adds the correct information. Without the header it is not clear that these files are supposed to be dual licensed under MIT or GPL-2.
Should these (or any of the drm drivers for that matter) be dual licensed or just MIT? The code is MIT.
I can't speak for the copyright owners for other files - where VMware holds copyright our intent is to have this be dual licensed MIT or GPL-2.0
/D
On 05/08/2018 11:52 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Dirk Hohndel dirk@hohndel.org wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:46:20AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
Thank you for the awesome summary, it is very helpful! So since the boilerplate has to stay, is there a benefit to adding the SPDX header? Is it just to make scripting/scraping easier?
Actually, the header now adds the correct information. Without the header it is not clear that these files are supposed to be dual licensed under MIT or GPL-2.
Should these (or any of the drm drivers for that matter) be dual licensed or just MIT? The code is MIT.
Alex
A "grep LICENSE `find . -name '*.c'`" seems to indicate that most if not all of the drm code and drivers are at least GPL licensed. Many of them claim "GPL and additional rights".
/Thomas
Am 03.05.2018 um 14:46 schrieb Sean Paul:
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:33:30PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c index 7c2485fe88d8..ea4d59eb8966 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT */ /**************************************************************************
- Copyright (c) 2006-2009 VMware, Inc., Palo Alto, CA., USA
Probably a stupid question, but can't you remove the boilerplate license now?
Answering my own question, there are differences between the license in the files and the SPDX license [1]. They are:
- the license in the files adds "(including the next paragraph)" in the second paragraph
- the files have "AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS" in the third paragraph
- a couple of list items are transposed and changed, but should be fine according to [2]
So IANAL, but it seems like you should either add the SPDX and remove the boilerplate, or keep the boilerplate and skip the SPDX.
I am not a lawyer, either, so I asked a couple before starting this little project...
GPL and similar license boilerplate can be replaced (and I removed it from some files in other commits that I'm working on to clean up the files which originated from VMware), but the MIT license is a template license and because of that the Copyright notice is actually part of the license and in order for people to be able to reproduce that, you aren't supposed to remove the boilerplate.
There are a number of variations of the MIT license, a bit of googling seems to indicate that the text that already existed in those files is the MIT/X-Consortium flavor of the license - that's where the "including the next paragraph" can be found, see here https://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7/doc/xorg-docs/License.html
SPDX appears to consider those licenses equivalent (they have a different, older flavor of the X11 license as "X11".
Similarly, the "and/or its suppliers" language seems to have been added by some project around X (but I wasn't able to pin down where exactly it came from), but once again the lawyers don't appear to see an issue.
So in summary
- we need to keep the boilerplate for MIT (but not GPL)
- the text modifications should be OK (and the scanners appear to recognize the existing text as MIT)
Not sure this answers your question.
Thank you for the awesome summary, it is very helpful!
Indeed that is a really cool explanation, going to keep that around for the next time somebody requests to remove the headers.
Thanks, Christian.
So since the boilerplate has to stay, is there a benefit to adding the SPDX header? Is it just to make scripting/scraping easier?
Sean
/D
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Alex Deucher -
Christian König -
Dirk Hohndel -
Sean Paul -
Thomas Hellstrom