hollalinux
/
linux-sg2042
mirror of https://github.com/sophgo/linux-riscv.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
linux-sg2042/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst

486 lines
18 KiB
ReStructuredText
Raw Normal View History

Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
docs: tidy up TOCs and refs to license-rules.rst The documentation and TOCs are organized in a manner of a tree. Adding a TOC to the root, which refers to a file which is located in a subfolder forms a grid. Those TOCs are a bit confusing and thats why we get additional error messages while building partial documentation:: $ make SPHINXDIRS=process htmldocs ... checking consistency... Documentation/process/license-rules.rst: \ WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree To fix it, the *root-license-TOC* is replaced by a reference and the 'license-roles.txt' is added to the Documentation/process/index.rst TOC. BTW: there was an old licences remark in Documentation/process/howto.rst which is also updated, mentioning SPDX and pointing to the license-rules.rst Signed-off-by: Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2018-08-14 19:43:12 +08:00
.. _kernel_licensing:
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
Linux kernel licensing rules
============================
The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public
COPYING: create a new file with points to the Kernel license files With the addition of SPDX patchset, the contents of COPYING file is now duplicated at two other files under LICENSE: LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note It is easy to check that the contents of the licence written on those files are identical with COPYING using: $ diff -upr COPYING LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 $ diff -upr COPYING LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note|less Also, a new file was added, with describes how SPDX should work at the Kernel source files: Documentation/process/license-rules.rst Instead fo having it copying the contents of two files, and not even mentioning the third one, replace it by a file whose content points to the other tree files, preserving the Kernel's license. Adjust license-rules.rst accordingly. Please notice that this file preserves the Kernel license as is, without any changes. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2018-03-23 17:51:05 +08:00
License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as provided in LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0,
with an explicit syscall exception described in
LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note, as described in the COPYING file.
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
COPYING: create a new file with points to the Kernel license files With the addition of SPDX patchset, the contents of COPYING file is now duplicated at two other files under LICENSE: LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note It is easy to check that the contents of the licence written on those files are identical with COPYING using: $ diff -upr COPYING LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 $ diff -upr COPYING LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note|less Also, a new file was added, with describes how SPDX should work at the Kernel source files: Documentation/process/license-rules.rst Instead fo having it copying the contents of two files, and not even mentioning the third one, replace it by a file whose content points to the other tree files, preserving the Kernel's license. Adjust license-rules.rst accordingly. Please notice that this file preserves the Kernel license as is, without any changes. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2018-03-23 17:51:05 +08:00
This documentation file provides a description of how each source file
should be annotated to make its license clear and unambiguous.
It doesn't replace the Kernel's license.
The license described in the COPYING file applies to the kernel source
as a whole, though individual source files can have a different license
which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0::
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
GPL-1.0+ : GNU General Public License v1.0 or later
GPL-2.0+ : GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
LGPL-2.0 : GNU Library General Public License v2 only
LGPL-2.0+ : GNU Library General Public License v2 or later
LGPL-2.1 : GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 only
LGPL-2.1+ : GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later
Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license,
e.g. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a
permissive license like BSD, MIT etc.
The User-space API (UAPI) header files, which describe the interface of
user-space programs to the kernel are a special case. According to the
note in the kernel COPYING file, the syscall interface is a clear boundary,
which does not extend the GPL requirements to any software which uses it to
communicate with the kernel. Because the UAPI headers must be includable
into any source files which create an executable running on the Linux
kernel, the exception must be documented by a special license expression.
The common way of expressing the license of a source file is to add the
matching boilerplate text into the top comment of the file. Due to
formatting, typos etc. these "boilerplates" are hard to validate for
tools which are used in the context of license compliance.
An alternative to boilerplate text is the use of Software Package Data
Exchange (SPDX) license identifiers in each source file. SPDX license
identifiers are machine parsable and precise shorthands for the license
under which the content of the file is contributed. SPDX license
identifiers are managed by the SPDX Workgroup at the Linux Foundation and
have been agreed on by partners throughout the industry, tool vendors, and
legal teams. For further information see https://spdx.org/
The Linux kernel requires the precise SPDX identifier in all source files.
The valid identifiers used in the kernel are explained in the section
`License identifiers`_ and have been retrieved from the official SPDX
license list at https://spdx.org/licenses/ along with the license texts.
License identifier syntax
-------------------------
1. Placement:
The SPDX license identifier in kernel files shall be added at the first
possible line in a file which can contain a comment. For the majority
doc: fix typos in license-rules.rst The patches fixes some typos in process/license-rules.rst Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-02-21 06:46:09 +08:00
of files this is the first line, except for scripts which require the
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
'#!PATH_TO_INTERPRETER' in the first line. For those scripts the SPDX
identifier goes into the second line.
|
2. Style:
The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment. The comment
style depends on the file type::
C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
ASM: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
scripts: # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
.rst: .. SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
.dts{i}: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used. This
is the reason for having the "/\* \*/" style comment in C header
files. There was build breakage observed with generated .lds files where
'ld' failed to parse the C++ comment. This has been fixed by now, but
there are still older assembler tools which cannot handle C++ style
comments.
|
3. Syntax:
A <SPDX License Expression> is either an SPDX short form license
identifier found on the SPDX License List, or the combination of two
SPDX short form license identifiers separated by "WITH" when a license
exception applies. When multiple licenses apply, an expression consists
of keywords "AND", "OR" separating sub-expressions and surrounded by
"(", ")" .
License identifiers for licenses like [L]GPL with the 'or later' option
are constructed by using a "+" for indicating the 'or later' option.::
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
// SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
WITH should be used when there is a modifier to a license needed.
For example, the linux kernel UAPI files use the expression::
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note
Other examples using WITH exceptions found in the kernel are::
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH mif-exception
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH GCC-exception-2.0
Exceptions can only be used with particular License identifiers. The
valid License identifiers are listed in the tags of the exception text
file. For details see the point `Exceptions`_ in the chapter `License
identifiers`_.
OR should be used if the file is dual licensed and only one license is
to be selected. For example, some dtsi files are available under dual
licenses::
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause
Examples from the kernel for license expressions in dual licensed files::
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR Apache-2.0
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MPL-1.1
// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause OR OpenSSL
AND should be used if the file has multiple licenses whose terms all
apply to use the file. For example, if code is inherited from another
project and permission has been given to put it in the kernel, but the
original license terms need to remain in effect::
// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT
Another other example where both sets of license terms need to be
adhered to is::
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ AND LGPL-2.1+
License identifiers
-------------------
The licenses currently used, as well as the licenses for code added to the
kernel, can be broken down into:
1. _`Preferred licenses`:
Whenever possible these licenses should be used as they are known to be
fully compatible and widely used. These licenses are available from the
directory::
LICENSES/preferred/
in the kernel source tree.
The files in this directory contain the full license text and
`Metatags`_. The file names are identical to the SPDX license
identifier which shall be used for the license in source files.
Examples::
LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
Contains the GPL version 2 license text and the required metatags::
LICENSES/preferred/MIT
Contains the MIT license text and the required metatags
_`Metatags`:
The following meta tags must be available in a license file:
- Valid-License-Identifier:
One or more lines which declare which License Identifiers are valid
inside the project to reference this particular license text. Usually
this is a single valid identifier, but e.g. for licenses with the 'or
later' options two identifiers are valid.
- SPDX-URL:
The URL of the SPDX page which contains additional information related
to the license.
- Usage-Guidance:
Freeform text for usage advice. The text must include correct examples
for the SPDX license identifiers as they should be put into source
files according to the `License identifier syntax`_ guidelines.
- License-Text:
All text after this tag is treated as the original license text
File format examples::
Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html
Usage-Guide:
To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX
tag/value pairs into a comment according to the placement
guidelines in the licensing rules documentation.
For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
License-Text:
Full license text
::
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
Usage-Guide:
To use this license in source code, put the following SPDX
tag/value pair into a comment according to the placement
guidelines in the licensing rules documentation.
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
License-Text:
Full license text
|
LICENSES: Rename other to deprecated Make it clear in the directory name that these are not intended for new code. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-04-30 18:51:30 +08:00
2. Deprecated licenses:
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
These licenses should only be used for existing code or for importing
code from a different project. These licenses are available from the
directory::
LICENSES: Rename other to deprecated Make it clear in the directory name that these are not intended for new code. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-04-30 18:51:30 +08:00
LICENSES/deprecated/
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
in the kernel source tree.
The files in this directory contain the full license text and
`Metatags`_. The file names are identical to the SPDX license
identifier which shall be used for the license in source files.
Examples::
LICENSES: Rename other to deprecated Make it clear in the directory name that these are not intended for new code. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-04-30 18:51:30 +08:00
LICENSES/deprecated/ISC
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
Contains the Internet Systems Consortium license text and the required
metatags::
LICENSES: Rename other to deprecated Make it clear in the directory name that these are not intended for new code. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-04-30 18:51:30 +08:00
LICENSES/deprecated/GPL-1.0
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
docs: Don't reference the ZLib license in license-rules.rst We never had a file called LICENSES/other/ZLib in the tree, so don't reference it. Instead mention the GPL v1 as an (bad) example. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-04-30 18:51:28 +08:00
Contains the GPL version 1 license text and the required metatags.
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
Metatags:
The metatag requirements for 'other' licenses are identical to the
requirements of the `Preferred licenses`_.
File format example::
Valid-License-Identifier: ISC
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html
Usage-Guide:
Usage of this license in the kernel for new code is discouraged
and it should solely be used for importing code from an already
existing project.
To use this license in source code, put the following SPDX
tag/value pair into a comment according to the placement
guidelines in the licensing rules documentation.
SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC
License-Text:
Full license text
|
LICENSES: Clearly mark dual license only licenses Just like the CDDL the Apache license and the MPL must only be used as a choice in additional to an GPL2 compatible license. Copy over the boilerplate from the CDDL file to the other two after fixing it up to make it clear the licenses need to be GPL2 compatible, not just the more generic GPL compatible. For example the Apache 2 license is GPL3 compatible, but that doesn't matter for the kernel. Also move these licenses to a separate directory and document the rules in license-rules.rst. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-04-30 18:51:29 +08:00
3. Dual Licensing Only
These licenses should only be used to dual license code with another
license in addition to a preferred license. These licenses are available
from the directory::
LICENSES/dual/
in the kernel source tree.
The files in this directory contain the full license text and
`Metatags`_. The file names are identical to the SPDX license
identifier which shall be used for the license in source files.
Examples::
LICENSES/dual/MPL-1.1
Contains the Mozilla Public License version 1.1 license text and the
required metatags::
LICENSES/dual/Apache-2.0
Contains the Apache License version 2.0 license text and the required
metatags.
Metatags:
The metatag requirements for 'other' licenses are identical to the
requirements of the `Preferred licenses`_.
File format example::
Valid-License-Identifier: MPL-1.1
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-1.1.html
Usage-Guide:
Do NOT use. The MPL-1.1 is not GPL2 compatible. It may only be used for
dual-licensed files where the other license is GPL2 compatible.
If you end up using this it MUST be used together with a GPL2 compatible
license using "OR".
To use the Mozilla Public License version 1.1 put the following SPDX
tag/value pair into a comment according to the placement guidelines in
the licensing rules documentation:
SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-1.1
License-Text:
Full license text
|
4. _`Exceptions`:
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
Some licenses can be amended with exceptions which grant certain rights
which the original license does not. These exceptions are available
from the directory::
LICENSES/exceptions/
in the kernel source tree. The files in this directory contain the full
exception text and the required `Exception Metatags`_.
Examples::
LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note
Contains the Linux syscall exception as documented in the COPYING
file of the Linux kernel, which is used for UAPI header files.
e.g. /\* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note \*/::
LICENSES/exceptions/GCC-exception-2.0
Contains the GCC 'linking exception' which allows to link any binary
independent of its license against the compiled version of a file marked
with this exception. This is required for creating runnable executables
from source code which is not compatible with the GPL.
_`Exception Metatags`:
The following meta tags must be available in an exception file:
- SPDX-Exception-Identifier:
One exception identifier which can be used with SPDX license
identifiers.
- SPDX-URL:
The URL of the SPDX page which contains additional information related
to the exception.
- SPDX-Licenses:
A comma separated list of SPDX license identifiers for which the
exception can be used.
- Usage-Guidance:
Freeform text for usage advice. The text must be followed by correct
examples for the SPDX license identifiers as they should be put into
source files according to the `License identifier syntax`_ guidelines.
- Exception-Text:
All text after this tag is treated as the original exception text
File format examples::
SPDX-Exception-Identifier: Linux-syscall-note
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-syscall-note.html
SPDX-Licenses: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+, GPL-1.0+, LGPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0+, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-2.1+
Usage-Guidance:
This exception is used together with one of the above SPDX-Licenses
to mark user-space API (uapi) header files so they can be included
into non GPL compliant user-space application code.
To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the
identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag:
SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX-License> WITH Linux-syscall-note
Exception-Text:
Full exception text
::
SPDX-Exception-Identifier: GCC-exception-2.0
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GCC-exception-2.0.html
SPDX-Licenses: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+
Usage-Guidance:
The "GCC Runtime Library exception 2.0" is used together with one
of the above SPDX-Licenses for code imported from the GCC runtime
library.
To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the
identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag:
SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX-License> WITH GCC-exception-2.0
Exception-Text:
Full exception text
All SPDX license identifiers and exceptions must have a corresponding file
doc: fix typos in license-rules.rst The patches fixes some typos in process/license-rules.rst Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-02-21 06:46:09 +08:00
in the LICENSES subdirectories. This is required to allow tool
Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to refer to (LICENSES/). Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2017-12-29 06:17:17 +08:00
verification (e.g. checkpatch.pl) and to have the licenses ready to read
and extract right from the source, which is recommended by various FOSS
organizations, e.g. the `FSFE REUSE initiative <https://reuse.software/>`_.
module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity The original MODULE_LICENSE string for kernel modules licensed under the GPL v2 (only / or later) was simply "GPL", which was - and still is - completely sufficient for the purpose of module loading and checking whether the module is free software or proprietary. In January 2003 this was changed with commit 3344ea3ad4b7 ("[PATCH] MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL support"). This commit can be found in the history git repository which holds the 1:1 import of Linus' bitkeeper repository: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/?id=3344ea3ad4b7c302c846a680dbaeedf96ed45c02 The main intention of the patch was to refuse linking proprietary modules against symbols exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() at module load time. As a completely undocumented side effect it also introduced the distinction between "GPL" and "GPL v2" MODULE_LICENSE() strings: * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later] * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2] * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more] * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 * or BSD license choice] * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 * or Mozilla license choice] This distinction was and still is wrong in several aspects: 1) It broke all modules which were using the "GPL" string in the MODULE_LICENSE() already and were licensed under GPL v2 only. A quick license scan over the tree at that time shows that at least 480 out of 1484 modules have been affected by this change back then. The number is probably way higher as this was just a quick check for clearly identifiable license information. There was exactly ONE instance of a "GPL v2" module license string in the kernel back then - drivers/net/tulip/xircom_tulip_cb.c which otherwise had no license information at all. There is no indication that the change above is any way related to this driver. The change happend with the 2.4.11 release which was on Oct. 9 2001 - so quite some time before the above commit. Unfortunately there is no trace on the intertubes to any discussion of this. 2) The dual licensed strings became ill defined as well because following the "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" distinction all dual licensed (or additional rights) MODULE_LICENSE strings would either require those dual licensed modules to be licensed under GPL v2 or later or just be unspecified for the dual licensing case. Neither choice is coherent with the GPL distinction. Due to the lack of a proper changelog and no real discussion on the patch submission other than a few implementation details, it's completely unclear why this distinction was introduced at all. Other than the comment in the module header file exists no documentation for this at all. From a license compliance and license scanning POV this distinction is a total nightmare. As of 5.0-rc2 2873 out of 9200 instances of MODULE_LICENSE() strings are conflicting with the actual license in the source code (either SPDX or license boilerplate/reference). A comparison between the scan of the history tree and a scan of current Linus tree shows to the extent that the git rename detection over Linus tree grafted with the history tree is halfways complete that almost none of the files which got broken in 2003 have been cleaned up vs. the MODULE_LICENSE string. So subtracting those 480 known instances from the conflicting 2800 of today more than 25% of the module authors got it wrong and it's a high propability that a large portion of the rest just got it right by chance. There is no value for the module loader to convey the detailed license information as the only decision to be made is whether the module is free software or not. The "and additional rights", "BSD" and "MPL" strings are not conclusive license information either. So there is no point in trying to make the GPL part conclusive and exact. As shown above it's already non conclusive for dual licensing and incoherent with a large portion of the module source. As an unintended side effect this distinction causes a major headache for license compliance, license scanners and the ongoing effort to clean up the license mess of the kernel. Therefore remove the well meant, but ill defined, distinction between "GPL" and "GPL v2" and document that: - "GPL" and "GPL v2" both express that the module is licensed under GPLv2 (without a distinction of 'only' and 'or later') and is therefore kernel license compliant. - None of the MODULE_LICENSE strings can be used for expressing or determining the exact license - Their sole purpose is to decide whether the module is free software or not. Add a MODULE_LICENSE subsection to the license rule documentation as well. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Acked-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> [jc: Did s/merily/merely/ ] Acked-by: Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
2019-02-09 00:02:56 +08:00
_`MODULE_LICENSE`
-----------------
Loadable kernel modules also require a MODULE_LICENSE() tag. This tag is
neither a replacement for proper source code license information
(SPDX-License-Identifier) nor in any way relevant for expressing or
determining the exact license under which the source code of the module
is provided.
The sole purpose of this tag is to provide sufficient information
whether the module is free software or proprietary for the kernel
module loader and for user space tools.
The valid license strings for MODULE_LICENSE() are:
============================= =============================================
"GPL" Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This
does not express any distinction between
GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The exact
license information can only be determined
via the license information in the
corresponding source files.
"GPL v2" Same as "GPL". It exists for historic
reasons.
"GPL and additional rights" Historical variant of expressing that the
module source is dual licensed under a
GPL v2 variant and MIT license. Please do
not use in new code.
"Dual MIT/GPL" The correct way of expressing that the
module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
variant or MIT license choice.
"Dual BSD/GPL" The module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
variant or BSD license choice. The exact
variant of the BSD license can only be
determined via the license information
in the corresponding source files.
"Dual MPL/GPL" The module is dual licensed under a GPL v2
variant or Mozilla Public License (MPL)
choice. The exact variant of the MPL
license can only be determined via the
license information in the corresponding
source files.
"Proprietary" The module is under a proprietary license.
This string is solely for proprietary third
party modules and cannot be used for modules
which have their source code in the kernel
tree. Modules tagged that way are tainting
the kernel with the 'P' flag when loaded and
the kernel module loader refuses to link such
modules against symbols which are exported
with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
============================= =============================================