u-boot/rules.mk

52 lines
1.7 KiB
Makefile
Raw Normal View History

#
Licenses: introduce SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very difficult to generate License Clearing Reports. An additional problem is that even the same lincenses are referred to by a number of slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address information, ...) which makes automatic processing a nightmare. To make this easier, such license headers in the source files will be replaced with a single line reference to Unique Lincense Identifiers as defined by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project [1]. For example, in a source file the full "GPL v2.0 or later" header text will be replaced by a single line: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ We use the SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers here; these are available at [2]. Note: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only a change to the textual representation of the license information, but in no way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch applied, all files will still be licensed under the same terms they were before. Note 2: The apparent difference between the old "COPYING" and the new "Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt" only results from switching to the upstream version of the license which is differently formatted; there are not any actual changes to the content. Note 3: There are some recurring questions about linense issues, such as: - Is a "All Rights Reserved" clause a problem in GPL code? - Are files without any license header a problem? - Do we need license headers at all? The following excerpt from an e-mail by Daniel B. Ravicher should help with these: | Message-ID: <4ADF8CAA.5030808@softwarefreedom.org> | Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:22 -0400 | From: "Daniel B. Ravicher" <ravicher@softwarefreedom.org> | To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> | Subject: Re: GPL and license cleanup questions | | Mr. Denk, | | Wolfgang Denk wrote: | > - There are a number of files which do not include any specific | > license information at all. Is it correct to assume that these files | > are automatically covered by the "GPL v2 or later" clause as | > specified by the COPYING file in the top level directory of the | > U-Boot source tree? | | That is a very fact specific analysis and could be different across the | various files. However, if the contributor could reasonably be expected | to have known that the project was licensed GPLv2 or later at the time | she made her contribution, then a reasonably implication is that she | consented to her contributions being distributed under those terms. | | > - Do such files need any clean up, for example should we add GPL | > headers to them, or is this not needed? | | If the project as a whole is licensed under clear terms, you need not | identify those same terms in each file, although there is no harm in | doing so. | | > - There are other files, which include both a GPL license header | > _plus_ some copyright note with an "All Rights Reserved" clause. It | > has been my understanding that this is a conflict, and me must ask | > the copyright holders to remove such "All Rights Reserved" clauses. | > But then, some people claim that "All Rights Reserved" is a no-op | > nowadays. License checking tools (like OSLC) seem to indicate this is | > a problem, but then we see quite a lot of "All rights reserved" in | > BSD-licensed files in gcc and glibc. So what is the correct way to | > deal with such files? | | It is not a conflict to grant a license and also reserve all rights, as | implicit in that language is that you are reserving all "other" rights | not granted in the license. Thus, a file with "Licensed under GPL, All | Rights Reserved" would mean that it is licensed under the GPL, but no | other rights are given to copy, modify or redistribute it. | | Warm regards, | --Dan | | Daniel B. Ravicher, Legal Director | Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Moglen Ravicher LLC | 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, NY 10023 | (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax | ravicher@softwarefreedom.org www.softwarefreedom.org [1] http://spdx.org/ [2] http://spdx.org/licenses/ Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
2013-06-21 08:22:36 +00:00
# (C) Copyright 2006-2013
# Wolfgang Denk, DENX Software Engineering, wd@denx.de.
#
Licenses: introduce SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very difficult to generate License Clearing Reports. An additional problem is that even the same lincenses are referred to by a number of slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address information, ...) which makes automatic processing a nightmare. To make this easier, such license headers in the source files will be replaced with a single line reference to Unique Lincense Identifiers as defined by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project [1]. For example, in a source file the full "GPL v2.0 or later" header text will be replaced by a single line: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ We use the SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers here; these are available at [2]. Note: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only a change to the textual representation of the license information, but in no way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch applied, all files will still be licensed under the same terms they were before. Note 2: The apparent difference between the old "COPYING" and the new "Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt" only results from switching to the upstream version of the license which is differently formatted; there are not any actual changes to the content. Note 3: There are some recurring questions about linense issues, such as: - Is a "All Rights Reserved" clause a problem in GPL code? - Are files without any license header a problem? - Do we need license headers at all? The following excerpt from an e-mail by Daniel B. Ravicher should help with these: | Message-ID: <4ADF8CAA.5030808@softwarefreedom.org> | Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:22 -0400 | From: "Daniel B. Ravicher" <ravicher@softwarefreedom.org> | To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> | Subject: Re: GPL and license cleanup questions | | Mr. Denk, | | Wolfgang Denk wrote: | > - There are a number of files which do not include any specific | > license information at all. Is it correct to assume that these files | > are automatically covered by the "GPL v2 or later" clause as | > specified by the COPYING file in the top level directory of the | > U-Boot source tree? | | That is a very fact specific analysis and could be different across the | various files. However, if the contributor could reasonably be expected | to have known that the project was licensed GPLv2 or later at the time | she made her contribution, then a reasonably implication is that she | consented to her contributions being distributed under those terms. | | > - Do such files need any clean up, for example should we add GPL | > headers to them, or is this not needed? | | If the project as a whole is licensed under clear terms, you need not | identify those same terms in each file, although there is no harm in | doing so. | | > - There are other files, which include both a GPL license header | > _plus_ some copyright note with an "All Rights Reserved" clause. It | > has been my understanding that this is a conflict, and me must ask | > the copyright holders to remove such "All Rights Reserved" clauses. | > But then, some people claim that "All Rights Reserved" is a no-op | > nowadays. License checking tools (like OSLC) seem to indicate this is | > a problem, but then we see quite a lot of "All rights reserved" in | > BSD-licensed files in gcc and glibc. So what is the correct way to | > deal with such files? | | It is not a conflict to grant a license and also reserve all rights, as | implicit in that language is that you are reserving all "other" rights | not granted in the license. Thus, a file with "Licensed under GPL, All | Rights Reserved" would mean that it is licensed under the GPL, but no | other rights are given to copy, modify or redistribute it. | | Warm regards, | --Dan | | Daniel B. Ravicher, Legal Director | Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Moglen Ravicher LLC | 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, NY 10023 | (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax | ravicher@softwarefreedom.org www.softwarefreedom.org [1] http://spdx.org/ [2] http://spdx.org/licenses/ Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
2013-06-21 08:22:36 +00:00
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
#
#########################################################################
_depend: $(obj).depend
# Split the source files into two camps: those in the current directory, and
# those somewhere else. For the first camp we want to support CPPFLAGS_<fname>
# and for the second we don't / can't.
PWD_SRCS := $(filter $(notdir $(SRCS)),$(SRCS))
OTHER_SRCS := $(filter-out $(notdir $(SRCS)),$(SRCS))
# This is a list of dependency files to generate
DEPS := $(basename $(patsubst %,$(obj).depend.%,$(PWD_SRCS)))
# Join all the dependencies into a single file, in three parts
# 1 .Concatenate all the generated depend files together
# 2. Add in the deps from OTHER_SRCS which we couldn't process
# 3. Add in the HOSTSRCS
$(obj).depend: $(src)Makefile $(TOPDIR)/config.mk $(DEPS) $(OTHER_SRCS) \
$(HOSTSRCS)
cat /dev/null $(DEPS) >$@
@for f in $(OTHER_SRCS); do \
g=`basename $$f | sed -e 's/\(.*\)\.[[:alnum:]_]/\1.o/'`; \
$(CC) -M $(CPPFLAGS) -MQ $(obj)$$g $$f >> $@ ; \
done
@for f in $(HOSTSRCS); do \
g=`basename $$f | sed -e 's/\(.*\)\.[[:alnum:]_]/\1.o/'`; \
$(HOSTCC) -M $(HOSTCPPFLAGS) -MQ $(obj)$$g $$f >> $@ ; \
done
MAKE_DEPEND = $(CC) -M $(CPPFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CPPFLAGS_DEP) \
-MQ $(addsuffix .o,$(obj)$(basename $<)) $< >$@
$(obj).depend.%: %.c
$(MAKE_DEPEND)
$(obj).depend.%: %.S
$(MAKE_DEPEND)
makefiles: fixes for building build tools Currently, some of the tools instead set CC to be HOSTCC in order to re-use some pattern rules -- but this fails when the user overrides CC on the make command line. Also, the HOSTCFLAGS in tools/Makefile are currently not being used because config.mk overwrites them. This patch adds static pattern rules for files that have been requested to be built with the native compiler using $(HOSTSRCS) and $(HOSTOBJS), and converts the tools to use them. It restores easylogo to using the host compiler, which was broken by commit 38d299c2db81bd889c601b5dfc12c4e83ef83333 (if this was an intentional change, please let me know -- but it seems to be a build tool). It restores -pedantic and the special flags for darwin and cygwin that were requested in tools/makefile (but keeps the flags added by config.mk) -- hopefully someone can test this on those platforms. It no longer conditionalizes -pedantic on not being darwin; it wasn't clear that that was intentional, and unless there's a real problem it's just inviting people to contribute non-pedantic patches to those files (I'm not a fan of -pedantic personally, but if it's on for one platform it should be on for all). HOST_LDFLAGS is renamed HOSTLDFLAGS for consistency with the previous HOST_CFLAGS to HOSTCFLAGS rename. A new HOSTCFLAGS_NOPED is made available for those files which currently cannot be built with -pedantic, and replaces the old FIT_CFLAGS. imls now uses the cross compiler properly, rather than by trying to reconstruct CC using the typoed $(CROSS_COMPILER). envcrc.c is now dependency-processed unconditionally -- previously it would be built without being on (HOST)SRCS if CONFIG_ENV_IS_EMBEDDED was not selected. Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
2009-11-05 00:41:41 +00:00
$(HOSTOBJS): $(obj)%.o: %.c
$(HOSTCC) $(HOSTCFLAGS) $(HOSTCFLAGS_$(@F)) $(HOSTCFLAGS_$(BCURDIR)) -o $@ $< -c
$(NOPEDOBJS): $(obj)%.o: %.c
$(HOSTCC) $(HOSTCFLAGS_NOPED) $(HOSTCFLAGS_$(@F)) $(HOSTCFLAGS_$(BCURDIR)) -o $@ $< -c
#########################################################################