Hi Gregory,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:50:02PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
Hi,
this series follow the recent trend for the license description to use
the SPDX-License-Identifier.
As there is no attempt to change any licenses at this time,
Acked-by: Jason Cooper <redacted>
The device tree for the SoCs were already converted because they
didn't have any licenses, so they were attributed a GPLv2.0 one.
In the end for kirkwood we have:
- 89 files under GPL2.0 (including the ones that initially didn't have
any license)
- 8 files under GPL2.0+
- 8 files under dual license GPL2.0+/MIT (improperly called X11)
For the Armada we already switched all the file under a dual license
GPL2.0/MIT or GPL2.0+/MIT, allowing other project to reuse the same
device tree file. Maybe we should do the same for kirkwood, at least
for the device tree describing the SoCs.
But I know it is not so easy because in this case we need to contact
all the author in order to modify the license.
iirc, there was an explicit objection. I don't recall who though. Has
anyone from *BSD been asking for a license change, or not supporting a
board because of this? I have a softspot for kirkwood boards, but they
are getting a bit long in the tooth...
thx,
Jason.