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

On 12/15/2017 05:27 PM, klaus.goger at theobroma-systems.com wrote:

quoted

On 15.12.2017, at 16:20, Heiko St?bner [off-list ref] wrote:

Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2017, 15:42:48 CET schrieb Philippe Ombredanne:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Heiko St?bner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2017, 14:45:34 CET schrieb Philippe Ombredanne:

quoted

Klaus,

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Klaus Goger

[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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/

For both patches:
Acked-by: Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com>