Re: [PATCH] LICENSES: adopt Linux-like LICENSES directory structure

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

Hi Ahmad.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:31:05AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 09:56:10AM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> > On 11/2/19 09:00, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/LICENSES/exceptions/u-boot-exception-2.0 b/LICENSES/exceptions/u-boot-exception-2.0
> > >> new file mode 100644
> > >> index 000000000000..c9b3cd981f51
> > >> --- /dev/null
> > >> +++ b/LICENSES/exceptions/u-boot-exception-2.0
> > >> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> > >> +
> > >> +GPL License Exception:
> > >> +
> > >> +Even though U-Boot in general is covered by the GPL-2.0/GPL-2.0+,
> > >> +this does *not* cover the so-called "standalone" applications that
> > >> +use U-Boot services by means of the jump table provided by U-Boot
> > >> +exactly for this purpose - this is merely considered normal use of
> > >> +U-Boot, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
> > >> +
> > >> +  The header files "include/image.h" and "arch/*/include/asm/u-boot.h"
> > >> +define interfaces to U-Boot.  Including these (unmodified) header
> > >> +files in another file is considered normal use of U-Boot, and does
> > >> +*not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
> > > 
> > > I don't think we need this. barebox doesn't have (and never had since
> > > the fork from U-Boot) these standalone applications. There is no
> > > jumptable in barebox. What we do have is modules support, but these are
> > > not covered by this text.
> > 
> > I can send out a v2 without the exception. Everything else is ok?

While on the LICENSE topic.
Could you update checkpatch to recognize SPDX entries too?

Missed it the other day, when looking into checkpatch output.
The SPDX stuff resulted in some false positives.

	Sam

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox