Hi Peng > -----Original Message----- > From: Peng Fan [mailto:peng....@nxp.com] > Sent: 25 October 2017 02:39
> > diff --git a/common/spl/spl_atf.c b/common/spl/spl_atf.c new file mode > > 100644 index 0000000..ec3f675 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/common/spl/spl_atf.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ > > +/* > > + * Reference to the ARM TF Project, > > + * plat/arm/common/arm_bl2_setup.c > > + * Portions copyright (c) 2013-2016, ARM Limited and Contributors. > > +All rights > > + * reserved. > > + * Copyright (C) 2016 Rockchip Electronic Co.,Ltd > > + * Written by Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> > > + * > > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause > > I understand that this patch has been applied, but is it ok to use "BSD-3- > Clause" here? > Why not use GPL license here? > The BSD-3-Clause license still applies to this file, even though the overall project license is GPL. This shouldn't be a problem as these licenses are compatible. You could clarify the licensing of this file in the project by using a compound SPDX license expression (see https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.twlc0ztnng3b) e.g. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ AND BSD-3-Clause) This would indicate that both licenses must be complied with. It's also possible to use "OR" to indicate that either license may be used, but I guess that's probably not what you want in this case. Regards Dan. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
