On 3/3/25 23:11, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 3/3/25 21:36, Phil Dennis-Jordan wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 at 19:20, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org
<mailto:phi...@linaro.org>> wrote:
On 12/1/25 22:00, Phil Dennis-Jordan wrote:
> From: Alexander Graf <g...@amazon.com <mailto:g...@amazon.com>>
> MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> contrib/vmapple/uuid.sh | 9 +
> docs/system/arm/vmapple.rst | 63 ++++
> docs/system/target-arm.rst | 1 +
> hw/vmapple/Kconfig | 20 ++
> hw/vmapple/meson.build | 1 +
> hw/vmapple/vmapple.c | 618 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++
> 7 files changed, 713 insertions(+)
Alex, Phil, we now mandate a SPDX tag. Due to the license used in
vmapple.c in this patch, are you OK with me squashing here:
Sorry about that, I forgot all about the SPDX tags in scripts and docs
- yes, please add that SPDX on uuid.sh. The vmapple.rst is Alex's
creation (I think I tweaked a few lines max) - but if that's the usual
license we use for documentation as well then it seems a reasonable
assumption to use GPL2+ there too if we don't hear from him.
TBH IDK and IANAL :) "GPL-2.0-or-later" is about *program*, is it
relevant for documentation? This is the single license used with SPDX
in docs/:
$ git grep SPDX docs
docs/system/devices/igb.rst:1:.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
docs/system/devices/virtio-gpu.rst:2: SPDX-License-Identifier:
GPL-2.0-or-later
Note we also use the FreeBSD-DOC in bitmaps.rst (not as SPDX tag):
docs/interop/bitmaps.rst:5: This file is licensed via The FreeBSD
Documentation License, the full
Per commit 2b96c1a4931 ("scripts: validate SPDX license choices"):
+ my $prefer = "GPL-2.0-or-later";
+ my @valid = qw(
+ GPL-2.0-only
+ LGPL-2.1-only
+ LGPL-2.1-or-later
+ BSD-2-Clause
+ BSD-3-Clause
+ MIT
+ );
GPL: "program"
LGPL: "library"
BSD/MIT: "software"
In doubt I'll stick with $prefer except if someone has a better clue /
suggestion.
FTR I'm going to send a PR including this series with the previously
$prefer = "GPL-2.0-or-later" snippets squashed.
Regards,
Phil.
