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