On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 2:03 PM Tommy Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Antonio > > The issue arose in Chrome (latest on Windows 10) when trying to add a > comment in one of the "popup" comment boxes. It kept jumping back up the > page and then gave the 500 error. > > Nothing critical - mainly cosmetic stuff. > One thing that I wondered was if it might be better to leave out SPDX > details and point at their website where I presume it's all explained > already? > Hi Tommy, I have spent quite some time with the spdx.org website and I find it's quite general and dispersive. OpenOCD developers need something locally on how to apply the SPDX tags on the different files and how to integrate files with "other" compatible licenses. > And then just focus on the OpenOCD specifics and keep things more concise? > I started from the Linux file in Documentation/process/license-rules.rst that is 485 lines long, and I already stripped it to 218 lines. Surely other text can be removed. > Also is "or later" a standard approach? I don't really understand how one > can commit to a "later" license when it may not yet exist and one doesn't > know what it might contain. > I don't have a complete answer. I expect it's kind of 'trusting' the FSF that if a bad guy finds a legal way to bypass the GPL, FSF will issue a new license that fixes the loophole. Anyway there is the "OR' between 'GPL-2.0' and 'later'! The code will remain GPL-2.0 but can be reused in other GPL-N.M (with N > 2) projects. We discussed if it makes sense to move OpenOCD to GPL-3.0. Both U-Boot and Linux are GPL-2.0-only! We could not benefit from that huge code base if OpenOCD moves to GPL-3.0. Regards, Antonio There were a few small phrasing issues but nothing critical. > > If I get a chance later I'll try again. > > Cheers > Tommy > ------------------------------ > *From:* Antonio Borneo <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday 8 March 2021 12:59 > *To:* Tommy Murphy <[email protected]> > *Cc:* OpenOCD <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [OpenOCD-devel] Request for review - licenses and SPDX > > That's really weird! > Thank anyway for the effort. > Did you found anything so bad that sounds like a blocking point? Would > eventually be possible to proceed with this patch set and amend the text > later or do you suggest to wait? > > Regards > Antonio > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 13:11 Tommy Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Antonio > > Unfortunately, I was about 75% of the way through my review comments when > I got this and lost everything and I don't have time right now to redo > them... :-| > > > > Cheers > Tommy > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Antonio Borneo <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday 7 March 2021 22:14 > *To:* OpenOCD <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [OpenOCD-devel] Request for review - licenses and SPDX > > Hi all, > > I would like to merge the changes to switch openocd licensing tag to > SPDX, but I have not received 'enough' feedback/review. > > The first question is if you agree on the licensing switch itself. > > Then, most of these changes are just moving/adding license files taken > from the FSF. Nothing to review there! > But I have added two important files! > My second question is about the 'wording' I have used in these files. > I'm not a native English speaker nor a lawyer, so your review there is > more than welcome. > The two files are: > - The final text in file 'COPYING' > http://openocd.zylin.com/gitweb?p=openocd.git;f=COPYING;h=0e8db929e671 > - The new text in file 'LICENSES/license-rules.txt' (partially copied > from Linux kernel) > http://openocd.zylin.com/#/c/5973/3/LICENSES/license-rules.txt > > For your reference, the whole patch set is here: > http://openocd.zylin.com/#/q/topic:spdx > > Thanks, > Antonio > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenOCD-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel > >
_______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
