| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |
| Who | What | When |
|---|---|---|
| *** | ChanServ sets mode: +v snawrocki | [09:57] |
| ...... (idle for 27mn) | ||
| mchehab | sailus: I'm applying the ipu3 driver...
I'll be doing a few minor checkpatch fixes while applying... in order to try to reduce the number of stuff we'll receive from staging newbie developers | [10:24] |
| ........ (idle for 37mn) | ||
| sailus: the documentation files are missing the SPDX tag!
(it is the only media documentation file without any license tags) please send it to me asap, as otherwise it may not reach 4.21 Also, while doing that, please remove the encoding line: +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/pixfmt-meta-intel-ipu3.rst @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@ +.. -*- coding: utf-8; mode: rst -*- + that was a remaining from the time the DocBook got converted. Was already stripped on every other documentation file I'll place it on a separate branch anyway, due to this: WARNING: kernel-doc './scripts/kernel-doc -rst -enable-lineno ./include/uapi/linux/intel-ipu3.h' failed with return code 1 | [11:02] | |
| .... (idle for 17mn) | ||
| I ended by doing just one small trivial checkpatch fix...
one patch had a <space><tab> sequence on a comment, and a typo "vaid" instead of "valid" I fixed it at the patch itself and added a [] tag explaining it | [11:24] | |
| ......... (idle for 42mn) | ||
| sailus | mchehab: Ack. You can expect a patch soon. | [12:07] |
| mchehab | ok, thanks | [12:07] |
| sailus | mchehab: Any reason why none of the FDL-licensed files don't use SPDX?
Because there is no corresponding SPDX tag? Or something else? I was wondering whether they should have the same text than the other files. Hmm. Wasn't the documentation dual licensed under GPL v2 as well? Ah. That must be driver documentation only. Not uAPI. But the effect of this is that only the author can move driver documentation to uAPI documentation or vice versa. | [12:13] |
| mchehab: What did you do you get that warning btw.?
mchehab: Two patches sent... | [12:26] | |
| ..... (idle for 21mn) | ||
| mchehab | sailus: there's a problem with the FDL SPDX tag
there's an open BZ at github https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/686 We had some discussions (c/c the linux-media ML) about that with Thomas Gleixner Re: [PATCHv18 01/35] Documentation: v4l: document request API is the thread basically, what we do is: Documentation/media/uAPI - should now be dual-licensed GPL and GFDL with no invariant sections the rest: GPL | [12:49] |
| sailus | I also understood it was dual licensed.
But the files (nor the section front page) list GPL v2. | [12:52] |
| mchehab | actually, what we have is not dual-licensed... it is just GFDL
due to historic reasons (10:53:10) sailus: But the files (nor the section front page) list GPL v2. sorry, I didn't understand what you're meaning | [12:53] |
| sailus | For instance:
Documentation/media/uapi/mediactl/media-types.rst | [12:54] |
| mchehab | ?
I sent an e-mail to maintainers ML about the licensing things Summary is here: https://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_How_to_submit_patches#License | [12:55] |
| sailus | That file has:
TODO: replace it to GFDL-1.1-or-later WITH no-invariant-sections It does not list GPL v2. | [12:57] |
| mchehab | on old stuff, we can't add GPL v2 without getting acks from everyone that wrote them | [12:58] |
| sailus | Sure.
Ok. | [12:58] |
| mchehab | for new stuff, let's dual-license | [12:59] |
| sailus | I'll resubmit the patch with GPL + FDL. | [12:59] |
| mchehab | avoiding any headaches
ok, thanks! btw, it makes sense later to try to relicense old stuff to GPL + GFDL... it should probably be easy to do it for mediactl, rc and cec... but doing it for V4L2 and DVB would be a way harder (for DVB it would be almost impossible, as the original docs were written for a company that got bankrupted we would likely need to talk with the owners of the old company actives in order to change license) | [12:59] |
| .......... (idle for 46mn) | ||
| pinchartl | mchehab: why do we license the UAPI and kernel documentation under different terms ? is it only historical ? what is the recommendation for new documentation these days, GPL or GFDL ? | [13:48] |
| ........................................... (idle for 3h31mn) | ||
| mchehab | pinchartl: historical and license incompatibilities
GFDL is not really compatible with GPL the DocBooks were all GFDL (the media ones) I mean: both DVB and V4L original docbooks were licensed under GFDL originally, they were using different versions of it (I guess one was 1.0+ and the other one 1.1+ - but I don't really remember the details) - when we merged, we got the common licensing versions (1.1+) all other texts that got attached to the same DocBook, so they all share the same license my understanding is that the format conversion didn't change the license so, everything attached after the conversion at the uAPI docs are GFDL 1.1+ The stuff outside Documentation/media/uapi didn't come from the DocBook files so they're all under the Kernel COPYING file, with states that the default for files without explicit license text is GPL 2.0 the recommendation for new docs is: Documentation/media/uapi -> dual GPL 2.0 (or 2.0+) and GFDL all the rest: GPL 2.0 (or 2.0+) | [17:19] |
| syoung: care to take a look on this? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659055 | [17:33] | |
| I remember you mentioned a rpm bugzilla but can't remember the hyperlink
Found it: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/604 | [17:38] | |
| I added the corresponding comments to both:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659047 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659055 syoung: feel free to place your comments there, if you feel the need | [17:54] | |
| .......................................................... (idle for 4h45mn) | ||
| *** | ChanServ sets mode: +v hverkuil | [22:40] |
| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |