Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm: dts: imx: Add iMX6Q-based Kontron SMARC-sAMX6i module

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:49:57PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:06:02PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Priit Laes <plaes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > SMARC-sAMX6i is a SMARC (Smart Mobility Architecture) compliant
> >> > module.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Priit Laes <plaes@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi | 434 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 434 insertions(+)
> >> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi
> >> > new file mode 100644
> >> > index 0000000..e3d7a35
> >> > --- /dev/null
> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-smarc-sam6xi.dtsi
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,434 @@
> >> > +/*
> >> > + * Copyright 2017 Priit Laes <plaes@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > + *
> >> > + * Based on initial work by Nikita Yushchenko <nyushchenko at dev.rtsoft.ru>
> >> > + *
> >> > + * 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.
> >> > + *
> >> > + *  a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >> > + *     modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> >> > + *     published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
> >> > + *     the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> >> > + *
> >> > + *     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 "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> >> > + *     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.
> >>
> >> Use SPDX tags here:
> >>
> >> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> >>
> >> While it says X11, this is really MIT license text.
> >
> > No.  Read the FSF's page on licenses:
> >
> >    X11 License (#X11License)
> > ...
> >            This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is
> >            misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.
> >
> > Never use the term "MIT license", it's ambiguous, and I doubt that such
> > a term (given the above) would stand up in a court of law as identifying
> > any particular license.
> 
> The SPDX tags have a very exact, documented meaning. That's the point.
> X11 means this[1]. MIT means this[2].

Meanwhile, the FSF appears to disagree, so this creates work for
solicitors (or lawyers if you're in the US) to have a field day.

Also, if it was _this_ easy, we would have included a web URL to
point at the license text since 1992 - but we haven't because it's
a level of indirection that brings with it uncertainty.

Now, you could say "oh we worship the LF, we trust them, they're
never going to do anything stupid, let's trust SPDX to always
stay the same and exist" but IMHO that's letting emotional
judgement cloud the legal issue.

There's also very little discussion on spdx.org about the legal
side of this stuff.

So, to me, this spdx stuff looks like a programmers solution to a
legal problem, looks completely untested legally, and goes against
recommended practices (which are to include the copyright plus the
actual notice of intent - not copyright plus a level of indirection.)

As I said above, if it was this easy, we'd have been linking to
(eg) fsf.org's copies of license texts for years or similar.

Now, with the FSF.org's different stance on X11 vs MIT compared
to spdx.org identifying "MIT" differently, I suspect that there
is ample room here for solicitors/lawyers to make a great deal
of cash.

Another point here is... if LF and/or SPDX.org goes belly-up, or
becomes unaccessible, eg, spdx.org's name registration expires and
gets taken over by a rogue party - at that point, this SPDX stuff
can mean _anything_.

I do hope those who you've been recommending to use SPDX tags stop
and think about it, and don't blindly follow what you're suggesting.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.