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

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Lars,

On 19/06/2019 09:20, Lars Kurth wrote:
> On 17/06/2019, 18:28, "Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>      On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
>      > 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...
>      
>      Interesting point: I would have thought that given that this is a GPLv2
>      project, if we went with SPDX, all files would need to have a
>      GPL-2.0-only tag on them, plus, optionally, an OR XXX clause.
>      
>      Something for Lars to investigate.
> That is not really how this works. The resulting Xen binary would be GPL 2.0, 
> while individual parts of the source tree can be of different licenses.
>      
>      > 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.
>      
>      Yep. The problematic BSD license is the BSD-4-Clause.
>      
> It is definitely OK: see http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=CONTRIBUTING
Thank you for the input! I will add a word in the commit message:

"Note the imported header is licensed BSD-2-clause. This is fine as it is 
compatible with GPLv2-only".
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

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