| Message ID | 20241115130139.1244786-1-wse@tuxedocomputers.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | module: Block some modules by TUXEDO from accessing | expand |
Am 15.11.24 um 13:58 schrieb Werner Sembach: > Following the meeting I wrote about yesterday, I now changed the license > of what we could change spontaniously to prove good faith. > > I still hope that the rest can be sorted out before anything gets merged. > We are working on it. A clear time window would still be helpfull. > > At Uwe. I don't know how it works if you modifiy someone elses code. I > removed the Signed-off-by: line and I guess you have to add it again? > > v2: Removed modules that could and have been spontaniously relicensed > v3: Fix typo and remove untrue assumption while giving more context > Wrong version in the cover letter, but should be no problem should it? I need to grab lunch ...
Hello Werner, On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:03:27PM +0100, Werner Sembach wrote: > Am 15.11.24 um 13:58 schrieb Werner Sembach: > > Following the meeting I wrote about yesterday, I now changed the license > > of what we could change spontaniously to prove good faith. > > > > I still hope that the rest can be sorted out before anything gets merged. > > We are working on it. A clear time window would still be helpfull. > > > > At Uwe. I don't know how it works if you modifiy someone elses code. I > > removed the Signed-off-by: line and I guess you have to add it again? The more usual thing would have been to reply to my mail saying something like: All the code in tuxedo-drivers.git that Tuxedo owns the complete copyright for was relicensed to GPLv2+ now. (See $link) For the remaining code I'm working in the background towards relicensing. So please drop $modulelist from your patch of modules to block. I'm sure with that feedback you don't risk that the original patch is applied. If you take someone else's patch and rework it (which IMHO should only be done when the original submitter dropped following up to prevent duplication of work), it's good style to explicitly mention the changes you implemented since the patch was initially posted. And then don't remove the S-o-b line. See 7602ffd1d5e8927fadd5187cb4aed2fdc9c47143 for an example. I think this is (at least partly) also described in Documentation/ somewhere. Looking at https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-drivers/-/commit/dd34594ab880ed477bb75725176c3fb9352a07eb (which would be $link mentioned above): If you switch to GPLv2, using the SPDX-License-Identifier should be good enough (but INAL). For sure don't put "51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA" in your files, https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-office-closing-party. Just keep You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. which is also the current suggestion by the FSF, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. Thanks for working on this! Uwe
Hello, Am 15.11.24 um 17:40 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: > Hello Werner, > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:03:27PM +0100, Werner Sembach wrote: >> Am 15.11.24 um 13:58 schrieb Werner Sembach: >>> Following the meeting I wrote about yesterday, I now changed the license >>> of what we could change spontaniously to prove good faith. >>> >>> I still hope that the rest can be sorted out before anything gets merged. >>> We are working on it. A clear time window would still be helpfull. >>> >>> At Uwe. I don't know how it works if you modifiy someone elses code. I >>> removed the Signed-off-by: line and I guess you have to add it again? > The more usual thing would have been to reply to my mail saying > something like: > > All the code in tuxedo-drivers.git that Tuxedo owns the complete > copyright for was relicensed to GPLv2+ now. (See $link) > For the remaining code I'm working in the background towards > relicensing. > > So please drop > > $modulelist > > from your patch of modules to block. > > I'm sure with that feedback you don't risk that the original patch is > applied. After the prevailing discussion, I'm not so sure about this. I went with the safe option of sending code, because code usually gets more attention on the LKML in my experience. > > If you take someone else's patch and rework it (which IMHO should only > be done when the original submitter dropped following up to prevent > duplication of work), it's good style to explicitly mention the changes > you implemented since the patch was initially posted. And then don't > remove the S-o-b line. See 7602ffd1d5e8927fadd5187cb4aed2fdc9c47143 for > an example. I think this is (at least partly) also described in > Documentation/ somewhere. Thanks for the reference, I will come back to it when I need it in the future. > > Looking at > https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-drivers/-/commit/dd34594ab880ed477bb75725176c3fb9352a07eb > (which would be $link mentioned above): If you switch to GPLv2, using > the SPDX-License-Identifier should be good enough (but INAL). For sure > don't put "51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA" > in your files, > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-office-closing-party. Just keep > > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > along with this program; if not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > > which is also the current suggestion by the FSF, > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. > > Thanks for working on this! > Uwe TBH I would be more happy with an apology for being called a liar, as I was already working on it starting Monday. Best regards, Werner Sembach