Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 02/10] xen/arm: optee: add OP-TEE header files

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

On 17/06/2019 17:28, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Looking at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html and also
> looking at the usage in the Linux kernel, I am pretty sure it is
> compatible. However, given that the Xen hypervisor as a whole is GPLv2,
> I think it would be more precise to say:
>
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Well, this is imported from OP-TEE. So I don't think we have the freedom to 
change this copyright header here...
What I was asking is whether this is OK to import BSD-2-Clause code in Xen. You 
seem to agree that it should be possible.
I will give a chance to Lars to answer. I will commit #1-8 tomorrow evening.

Cheers,

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > hmm, I forgot to CC lars. Sorry for that.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On 15/06/2019 19:39, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > (+ Lars)
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 6/11/19 7:46 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/tee/optee_msg.h
> > > > b/xen/include/asm-arm/tee/optee_msg.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000000..fe743dbde3
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/tee/optee_msg.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause */
> > > Hmmm, sorry I haven't noticed it until now (SDPX is more explicit that the
> > > full-blown license). I suspect this is fine to have BSD-2 Clause license in
> > > Xen but I want to confirmation from someone knowing more than me about
> > > license compatibility. Lars?
> > >
> > > If this is fine, then I would like to add a word in the commit message (I am
> > > happy to do that on commit).
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > --
> > Julien Grall
--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel