Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: tegra: apalis-tk1: Add SPDX license (GPL-2.0 OR X11) identifiers

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 19 July 2018 at 18:44, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Three files dual-licensed were missing the SPDX license identifiers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-apalis-emc.dtsi | 38 +-----------------------------
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-apalis-eval.dts | 38 +-----------------------------
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-apalis.dtsi     | 38 +-----------------------------
>>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 111 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-apalis-emc.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-apalis-emc.dtsi
>> index ca2c3a557895..cdbbb3562fb9 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-apalis-emc.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-apalis-emc.dtsi
>> @@ -1,42 +1,6 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR X11
>>  /*
>>   * Copyright 2016 Toradex AG
>> - *
>> - * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
>> - * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
>> - * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
>> - * whole.
>
> This is weirdly enough not what is called an X11 license [1] even
> though it is named this way here... but this is an  MIT license [2]
> with a small variation. (See below)

Indeed... I checked the text just briefly and in 90% these licenses
are the same.

>> - *
>> - *  a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> - *     modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
>> - *     version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> - *
>> - *     This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful
>> - *     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> - *     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>> - *     GNU General Public License for more details.
>> - *
>> - * Or, alternatively
>> - *
>> - *  b) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
>> - *     obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
>> - *     files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
>> - *     restriction, including without limitation the rights to use
>> - *     copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
>> - *     sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
>> - *     Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
>> - *     conditions:
>> - *
>> - *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>> - *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>> - *
>> - *     THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED , WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND
>
> The MIT standard text [2] has a few extra commas and states instead:
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
>
> Here "AS IS" is omitted. I am not sure this is material but IMHO it
> would be good to get Toradex signoff on this.
>
>> - *     EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
>> - *     OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
>> - *     NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
>> - *     HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY
>> - *     WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
>> - *     FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
>> - *     OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
>>   */
>
> <snip>
>
>
> With all this said, I think that your expression should be this
> instead (and this applies to other places too):
>
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT

Right, Marcel from Toradex already replied that he tries to switch to
MIT license. Since this is already MIT-like license then maybe
relicensing will not be needed and could be done fast (e.g. without
signs of all involved people).

In such case let's skip this patch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof