[PATCH v2 3/9] drm: Rename drm_bridge_timings to drm_timings

[Fabrizio Castro]

Hi Greg, hi Laurent,

Thank you for your feedback!

> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: 15 August 2019 15:53
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] drm: Rename drm_bridge_timings to drm_timings
> 
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 02:31:26PM +0000, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
> > Hi Greg, hi Laurent,
> >
> > Thank you for your feedback!
> >
> > > From: linux-kernel-owner at vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel-owner at vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Laurent Pinchart
> > > Sent: 15 August 2019 15:15
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] drm: Rename drm_bridge_timings to drm_timings
> > >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:04:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:18:38PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > Hi Fabrizio,
> > > > >
> > > > > (CC'ing Greg as the architect of the SPDX move)
> > > >
> > > > _one of_, not the one that did the most of he work, that would be Thomas :)
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:04:27PM +0100, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
> > > > > > The information represented by drm_bridge_timings is also
> > > > > > needed by panels, therefore rename drm_bridge_timings to
> > > > > > drm_timings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro at bp.renesas.com>
> > > > > > Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg43271.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > v1->v2:
> > > > > > * new patch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have copied the license from include/drm/drm_bridge.h as that's
> > > > > > where the struct originally came from. What's the right SPDX license
> > > > > > to use in this case?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg, any idea on how we should handle this ?
> > > >
> > > > Ugh, what lunacy.  But drm_bridge.h is NOT under any "public domain"
> > > > license, so why is that an issue here?  This looks like a "normal" bsd 3
> > > > clause license to me, right?
> > >
> > > You're right, I overread part of the text in drm_bridge.h, it seems to
> > > indeed be covered by a BSD 3 clause license. Sorry for the noise.
> >
> > Mmm... This is the template for the BSD-3-Clause:
> >
> > Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
> > All rights reserved.
> >
> > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following
> conditions are met:
> >
> > Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> > Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
> from this software without specific prior written permission.
> > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS 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.
> >
> > And this is the license coming from include/drm/drm_bridge.h:
> >
> > /*
> >  * Copyright (c) 2016 Intel Corporation
> >  *
> >  * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its
> >  * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that
> >  * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright
> >  * notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and
> >  * that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or
> >  * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific,
> >  * written prior permission.  The copyright holders make no representations
> >  * about the suitability of this software for any purpose.  It is provided "as
> >  * is" without express or implied warranty.
> >  *
> >  * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE,
> >  * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO
> >  * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
> >  * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE,
> >  * DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
> >  * TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE
> >  * OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> >  */
> >
> > Perhaps I am completely wrong here, and I am not a lawyer, but the wording seems different enough to me...
> > I am happy to use "BSD-3-Clause" though. Laurent please double check.
> 
> Please talk to your lawyers about this, we are not them...

I am really sorry for the trouble (and the waste of time)!

I'll try and use "BSD-3-Clause" for the next version and I'll see what happens.

Thanks,
Fab

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h