Hi,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:37:26AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 28.02.2007 00:30, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Add a note that the resulting LinuxBIOS images are licensed under the terms of the GPL, version 2 (trivial).
Not trivial, and the patch did not appear on the list.
Sure it is trivial. It is just documenting a fact. It was discussed before, too.
Maybe I missed it, but when did the v2/v2+ discussion take place? Or is this just a symptom of sleep deprivation on my side?
It was discussed, just not on this list ;)
Please note that this does _not_ mean that all of the LinuxBIOS code is GPLv2. The text I added just states a fact which has already been true all of the time. I did not make changes to any licensing.
Here's the situation: we have some files which are GPLv2, we have some files which are 'GPLv2 or later' and we have some files which have other licenses.
LinuxBIOS (binary) images are built from source code which is in part GPLv2 and in part 'GPLv2 or later'. Thus the resulting binaries as a whole are licensed under the GPLv2 only.
At least that's my understanding of the situation, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Plus, it did not have the ack of another person.
It's trivial. Someone can un-ack and revert it if needed ;-)
But what's the point in Acked-by then? We can always revert if needed.
The Acked-by is a means to enforce review on all but trivial patches. I used the exception documented in the wiki, where you can self-ack a commit which consists of trivial changes only. This is one of them, it's just one line of text in a README.
HTH, Uwe.