Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
Hi Greg: We have obtained GPL 2 only header from Synopsis. We have also identified all parties that contributed to the code base and contacted them regarding license change. Any party that we could not reach, we will remove the patch from the submission. Let me know if this is sufficient for resubmission. Thanks Feng On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 07:02:44PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:14:59PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We will change to a BSD 3 clause license header. Our legal counsel is talking to Synopsis to make this change. Why BSD? ??You do realize what that means when combined within the body of the kernel, right? FKAN: We will shoot for a dual BSD/GPL license such as the one in the HP ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??Hil driver. What specific driver is this? FKAN: this is driver/input/serio/hil_mlc.c and quite a number of others. Ok, thanks. Are you _sure_ that you didn't take any existing GPL code and put it into this driver when making it? Did all contributors to the code release their contributions under both licenses? And are you sure that all of the contributors to the code agree with this licensing change? ??Are you going to require contributors to dual-license their changes? If so, why keep it BSD, what does that get you? FKAN: for one thing, to make it future proof on other submissions. What do you mean by this? What can you do with this code other than use it on a Linux system? You can't put it into any other operating system with a different license, can you? Are you going to be expecting others to contribute back to the code under this license, or will you accept the fact that future contributions from the community will cause the license to change? You didn't answer this question, which is a very important one before I can accept this driver. FKAN: Yes, all of the above. Our legal is working on that. I thought by default GPL defines the above statement. The GPL does, but as you are trying to dual-license the code, you have to be careful about how you accept changes, and under what license. It's a lot more work than I think you realize. What process do you have in place to handle this? We will resubmit once this is in place. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. My main concern is that you, and everyone else involved in the driver, never considered the license of the code in the first place and expected the kernel community to accept it as-is, placing the problem on us. FKAN: Please don't think this is the case, we gone through this exercise ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? with Denx. What is Denx? FKAN: U-Boot Denx.de Ah, thanks. We had legal looking into the header before submission ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? to them and the kernel. Then what happened here? ??Just curious as to how the driver was public for so long before someone realized this. FKAN: this was few years back. At the time we had the header changed so it was BSD like to be accepted by Denx. What will be done in the future to prevent this from happening again? FKAN: agreed, once bitten :) That didn't answer the question :) FKAN: we have a system of checks for every patch that goes out. I will send out a guideline to all reviewer to make sure the header follow kernel precedence. But you took this code from a different vendor, are you able to properly identify the code contributions to this base and what license it is under and where they got it from? Legal is quite aware of the issue now too. As they should be :) Please reconsider the dual licensing unless you really are ready to handle the implications of it. thanks, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 03:01:33PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We have obtained GPL 2 only header from Synopsis. We have also identified all parties that contributed to the code base and contacted them regarding license change. Any party that we could not reach, we will remove the patch from the submission. Let me know if this is sufficient for resubmission. Yes, that sounds fine, thanks for doing that work. greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
Hi Greg: We will change to a BSD 3 clause license header. Our legal counsel is talking to Synopsis to make this change. We will resubmit once this is in place. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. Feng Kan Applied Micro On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 04:05:49PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We are having our legal revisit this again. What would you advise us to do at this point? I thought I was very clear below as to what is needed. Disclose the agreement or have someone with legal authority reply this thread. Neither will resolve the end issue, right? Perhaps something in the header that states Applied Micro verified with Synopsys to use this code for GPL purpose. No, that will just make it messier. Someone needs to delete all of the mess in the file, put the proper license information for what the code is being licensed under (whatever it is), and provide a signed-off-by from a person from Synopsys and APM that can speak for the company that they agree that the code can properly be placed into the Linux kernel. thanks, greg k-h -- Feng Kan ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:14:59PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We will change to a BSD 3 clause license header. Our legal counsel is talking to Synopsis to make this change. Why BSD? You do realize what that means when combined within the body of the kernel, right? Are you going to be expecting others to contribute back to the code under this license, or will you accept the fact that future contributions from the community will cause the license to change? We will resubmit once this is in place. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. My main concern is that you, and everyone else involved in the driver, never considered the license of the code in the first place and expected the kernel community to accept it as-is, placing the problem on us. What will be done in the future to prevent this from happening again? thanks, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
Hi Greg: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:14:59PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We will change to a BSD 3 clause license header. Our legal counsel is talking to Synopsis to make this change. Why BSD? You do realize what that means when combined within the body of the kernel, right? FKAN: We will shoot for a dual BSD/GPL license such as the one in the HP Hil driver. Are you going to be expecting others to contribute back to the code under this license, or will you accept the fact that future contributions from the community will cause the license to change? We will resubmit once this is in place. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. My main concern is that you, and everyone else involved in the driver, never considered the license of the code in the first place and expected the kernel community to accept it as-is, placing the problem on us. FKAN: Please don't think this is the case, we gone through this exercise with Denx. We had legal looking into the header before submission to them and the kernel. What will be done in the future to prevent this from happening again? FKAN: agreed, once bitten :) thanks, greg k-h -- Feng Kan ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:14:59PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We will change to a BSD 3 clause license header. Our legal counsel is talking to Synopsis to make this change. Why BSD? You do realize what that means when combined within the body of the kernel, right? FKAN: We will shoot for a dual BSD/GPL license such as the one in the HP Hil driver. What specific driver is this? And are you sure that all of the contributors to the code agree with this licensing change? Are you going to require contributors to dual-license their changes? If so, why keep it BSD, what does that get you? Are you going to be expecting others to contribute back to the code under this license, or will you accept the fact that future contributions from the community will cause the license to change? You didn't answer this question, which is a very important one before I can accept this driver. We will resubmit once this is in place. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. My main concern is that you, and everyone else involved in the driver, never considered the license of the code in the first place and expected the kernel community to accept it as-is, placing the problem on us. FKAN: Please don't think this is the case, we gone through this exercise with Denx. What is Denx? We had legal looking into the header before submission to them and the kernel. Then what happened here? Just curious as to how the driver was public for so long before someone realized this. What will be done in the future to prevent this from happening again? FKAN: agreed, once bitten :) That didn't answer the question :) thanks, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:14:59PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We will change to a BSD 3 clause license header. Our legal counsel is talking to Synopsis to make this change. Why BSD? You do realize what that means when combined within the body of the kernel, right? FKAN: We will shoot for a dual BSD/GPL license such as the one in the HP Hil driver. What specific driver is this? FKAN: this is driver/input/serio/hil_mlc.c and quite a number of others. And are you sure that all of the contributors to the code agree with this licensing change? Are you going to require contributors to dual-license their changes? If so, why keep it BSD, what does that get you? FKAN: for one thing, to make it future proof on other submissions. Are you going to be expecting others to contribute back to the code under this license, or will you accept the fact that future contributions from the community will cause the license to change? You didn't answer this question, which is a very important one before I can accept this driver. FKAN: Yes, all of the above. Our legal is working on that. I thought by default GPL defines the above statement. We will resubmit once this is in place. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. My main concern is that you, and everyone else involved in the driver, never considered the license of the code in the first place and expected the kernel community to accept it as-is, placing the problem on us. FKAN: Please don't think this is the case, we gone through this exercise with Denx. What is Denx? FKAN: U-Boot Denx.de We had legal looking into the header before submission to them and the kernel. Then what happened here? Just curious as to how the driver was public for so long before someone realized this. FKAN: this was few years back. At the time we had the header changed so it was BSD like to be accepted by Denx. What will be done in the future to prevent this from happening again? FKAN: agreed, once bitten :) That didn't answer the question :) FKAN: we have a system of checks for every patch that goes out. I will send out a guideline to all reviewer to make sure the header follow kernel precedence. Legal is quite aware of the issue now too. thanks, greg k-h -- Feng Kan ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 07:02:44PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:14:59PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We will change to a BSD 3 clause license header. Our legal counsel is talking to Synopsis to make this change. Why BSD? ??You do realize what that means when combined within the body of the kernel, right? FKAN: We will shoot for a dual BSD/GPL license such as the one in the HP ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??Hil driver. What specific driver is this? FKAN: this is driver/input/serio/hil_mlc.c and quite a number of others. Ok, thanks. Are you _sure_ that you didn't take any existing GPL code and put it into this driver when making it? Did all contributors to the code release their contributions under both licenses? And are you sure that all of the contributors to the code agree with this licensing change? ??Are you going to require contributors to dual-license their changes? If so, why keep it BSD, what does that get you? FKAN: for one thing, to make it future proof on other submissions. What do you mean by this? What can you do with this code other than use it on a Linux system? You can't put it into any other operating system with a different license, can you? Are you going to be expecting others to contribute back to the code under this license, or will you accept the fact that future contributions from the community will cause the license to change? You didn't answer this question, which is a very important one before I can accept this driver. FKAN: Yes, all of the above. Our legal is working on that. I thought by default GPL defines the above statement. The GPL does, but as you are trying to dual-license the code, you have to be careful about how you accept changes, and under what license. It's a lot more work than I think you realize. What process do you have in place to handle this? We will resubmit once this is in place. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. My main concern is that you, and everyone else involved in the driver, never considered the license of the code in the first place and expected the kernel community to accept it as-is, placing the problem on us. FKAN: Please don't think this is the case, we gone through this exercise ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? with Denx. What is Denx? FKAN: U-Boot Denx.de Ah, thanks. We had legal looking into the header before submission ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? to them and the kernel. Then what happened here? ??Just curious as to how the driver was public for so long before someone realized this. FKAN: this was few years back. At the time we had the header changed so it was BSD like to be accepted by Denx. What will be done in the future to prevent this from happening again? FKAN: agreed, once bitten :) That didn't answer the question :) FKAN: we have a system of checks for every patch that goes out. I will send out a guideline to all reviewer to make sure the header follow kernel precedence. But you took this code from a different vendor, are you able to properly identify the code contributions to this base and what license it is under and where they got it from? Legal is quite aware of the issue now too. As they should be :) Please reconsider the dual licensing unless you really are ready to handle the implications of it. thanks, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:49:41AM -0700, Fushen Chen wrote: This adds support for the USB host controller on APM SoC using Synopsys Designware IP. Signed-off-by: Fushen Chen fc...@apm.com Signed-off-by: Mark Miesfeld mmiesf...@apm.com Can I get some acks from the other developers who have worked on this driver to verify that this version does indeed work, and that their work has been integrated properly into the driver? --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc_otg/dwc_otg_apmppc.c @@ -0,0 +1,408 @@ +/* + * DesignWare HS OTG controller driver + * + * Author: Mark Miesfeld mmiesf...@apm.com + * + * Based on versions provided by APM and Synopsis which are: + * Copyright (C) 2009-2010 AppliedMicro(www.apm.com) + * Modified by Stefan Roese s...@denx.de, DENX Software Engineering + * + * Synopsys HS OTG Linux Software Driver and documentation (hereinafter, + * Software) is an Unsupported proprietary work of Synopsys, Inc. unless + * otherwise expressly agreed to in writing between Synopsys and you. WTF? Um, I think someone needs to rethink this submission, as this really doesn't look like GPL code... Oh, and where do I go get that writing between me and Synopsys to fix this up? :) + * The Software IS NOT an item of Licensed Software or Licensed Product under + * any End User Software License Agreement or Agreement for Licensed Product + * with Synopsys or any supplement thereto. You are permitted to use and + * redistribute this Software in source and binary forms, with or without + * modification, provided that redistributions of source code must retain this + * notice. You may not view, use, disclose, copy or distribute this file or + * any information contained herein except pursuant to this license grant from + * Synopsys. If you do not agree with this notice, including the disclaimer + * below, then you are not authorized to use the Software. Same here, what is going on? Has someone run this through the proper legal approval to make public? If so, someone needs to go kick a lawyer. If not, they just got in big trouble... + * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING DISTRIBUTED BY SYNOPSYS SOLELY ON AN AS IS BASIS + * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE + * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE + * ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL SYNOPSYS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, + * INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES + * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR + * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER + * CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT + * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY + * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH + * DAMAGE. + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as + * published by the Free Software Foundation. + * + * This program 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. + * + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, + * Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. It's fun to just tack on the GPL boilerplate on a file, but when it conflicts with other stuff in the same file, it kind of just makes us all go crazy. I can't take this at all, please go clean it up. ick, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On 07/26/2010 02:37 PM, Greg KH wrote: [...] +/* + * DesignWare HS OTG controller driver + * + * Author: Mark Miesfeldmmiesf...@apm.com + * + * Based on versions provided by APM and Synopsis which are: + * Copyright (C) 2009-2010 AppliedMicro(www.apm.com) + * Modified by Stefan Roeses...@denx.de, DENX Software Engineering + * + * Synopsys HS OTG Linux Software Driver and documentation (hereinafter, + * Software) is an Unsupported proprietary work of Synopsys, Inc. unless + * otherwise expressly agreed to in writing between Synopsys and you. WTF? I was not involved with this version of the patch, but is it really that bad? Um, I think someone needs to rethink this submission, as this really doesn't look like GPL code... Oh, and where do I go get that writing between me and Synopsys to fix this up? :) + * The Software IS NOT an item of Licensed Software or Licensed Product under + * any End User Software License Agreement or Agreement for Licensed Product + * with Synopsys or any supplement thereto. You are permitted to use and + * redistribute this Software in source and binary forms, with or without + * modification, provided that redistributions of source code must retain this + * notice. You may not view, use, disclose, copy or distribute this file or + * any information contained herein except pursuant to this license grant from + * Synopsys. If you do not agree with this notice, including the disclaimer + * below, then you are not authorized to use the Software. Same here, what is going on? First of all, I am not a Lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt if you wish. How is this different than a 3-clause BSD License? There are other instances of BSD Licensed code in the kernel (see include/linux/quota.h for example). Has someone run this through the proper legal approval to make public? If so, someone needs to go kick a lawyer. If not, they just got in big trouble... + * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING DISTRIBUTED BY SYNOPSYS SOLELY ON AN AS IS BASIS + * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE + * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE + * ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL SYNOPSYS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, + * INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES + * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR + * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER + * CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT + * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY + * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH + * DAMAGE. + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as + * published by the Free Software Foundation. + * + * This program 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. + * + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, + * Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. It's fun to just tack on the GPL boilerplate on a file, but when it conflicts with other stuff in the same file, it kind of just makes us all go crazy. Indeed that part does seem questionable. Could it be used with the original Synopsys license, without tacking on this GPL bit? David Daney ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 02:55:21PM -0700, David Daney wrote: On 07/26/2010 02:37 PM, Greg KH wrote: [...] +/* + * DesignWare HS OTG controller driver + * + * Author: Mark Miesfeldmmiesf...@apm.com + * + * Based on versions provided by APM and Synopsis which are: + * Copyright (C) 2009-2010 AppliedMicro(www.apm.com) + * Modified by Stefan Roeses...@denx.de, DENX Software Engineering + * + * Synopsys HS OTG Linux Software Driver and documentation (hereinafter, + * Software) is an Unsupported proprietary work of Synopsys, Inc. unless + * otherwise expressly agreed to in writing between Synopsys and you. WTF? I was not involved with this version of the patch, but is it really that bad? You tell me, how does that interact with the GPL? Do you want to be in charge of getting that approval in writing from every single user of Linux and Synopsys so that this is somehow not a proprietary work of Synopsys, Inc.? Um, I think someone needs to rethink this submission, as this really doesn't look like GPL code... Oh, and where do I go get that writing between me and Synopsys to fix this up? :) + * The Software IS NOT an item of Licensed Software or Licensed Product under + * any End User Software License Agreement or Agreement for Licensed Product + * with Synopsys or any supplement thereto. You are permitted to use and + * redistribute this Software in source and binary forms, with or without + * modification, provided that redistributions of source code must retain this + * notice. You may not view, use, disclose, copy or distribute this file or + * any information contained herein except pursuant to this license grant from + * Synopsys. If you do not agree with this notice, including the disclaimer + * below, then you are not authorized to use the Software. Same here, what is going on? First of all, I am not a Lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt if you wish. How is this different than a 3-clause BSD License? There are other instances of BSD Licensed code in the kernel (see include/linux/quota.h for example). That's wonderful, then license it under the 3-clause BSD license. Don't make up something else :) If that's what is happening here, then document it as such. Has someone run this through the proper legal approval to make public? If so, someone needs to go kick a lawyer. If not, they just got in big trouble... + * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING DISTRIBUTED BY SYNOPSYS SOLELY ON AN AS IS BASIS + * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE + * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE + * ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL SYNOPSYS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, + * INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES + * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR + * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER + * CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT + * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY + * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH + * DAMAGE. + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as + * published by the Free Software Foundation. + * + * This program 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. + * + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, + * Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. It's fun to just tack on the GPL boilerplate on a file, but when it conflicts with other stuff in the same file, it kind of just makes us all go crazy. Indeed that part does seem questionable. Could it be used with the original Synopsys license, without tacking on this GPL bit? Um, no. Please, someone needs to go run this past the Synopsys lawyers (yeah, sorry, that's horrible to do, but it needs to be done to get it correct.) Because of this, I'd like to get a lawyer's signed-off-by on the code as well just to verify that it's all ok. Yes, that's a pain, but we gotta make sure that everyone involved knows _exactly_ what is going on here, and this mess of header garbage shows that no one knows what is happening. thanks, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 03:05:13PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Please, someone needs to go run this past the Synopsys lawyers (yeah, sorry, that's horrible to do, but it needs to be done to get it correct.) Because of this, I'd like to get a lawyer's signed-off-by on the code as well just to verify that it's all ok. Or someone with the legal authority to verify that this is an action that Synopsys agrees with the license of the code now. This usually means a VP or some such person that can act publicly for the company. thanks, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
Hi Greg: We are having our legal revisit this again. What would you advise us to do at this point? Disclose the agreement or have someone with legal authority reply this thread. Perhaps something in the header that states Applied Micro verified with Synopsys to use this code for GPL purpose. Feng Kan On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Greg KH gre...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 03:05:13PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Please, someone needs to go run this past the Synopsys lawyers (yeah, sorry, that's horrible to do, but it needs to be done to get it correct.) Because of this, I'd like to get a lawyer's signed-off-by on the code as well just to verify that it's all ok. Or someone with the legal authority to verify that this is an action that Synopsys agrees with the license of the code now. This usually means a VP or some such person that can act publicly for the company. thanks, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 04:05:49PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote: Hi Greg: We are having our legal revisit this again. What would you advise us to do at this point? I thought I was very clear below as to what is needed. Disclose the agreement or have someone with legal authority reply this thread. Neither will resolve the end issue, right? Perhaps something in the header that states Applied Micro verified with Synopsys to use this code for GPL purpose. No, that will just make it messier. Someone needs to delete all of the mess in the file, put the proper license information for what the code is being licensed under (whatever it is), and provide a signed-off-by from a person from Synopsys and APM that can speak for the company that they agree that the code can properly be placed into the Linux kernel. thanks, greg k-h ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
