lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses
Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> escreveu:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage
> > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do:
> >
> > Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much prefer that over
> > the nasty C99 comments to start with. And while I'm a bit behind on
> > email I still haven't managed to find a good rationale for those to
> > start with.

Yeah, I also find nasty to have things like this on each C file:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Copyright ...
* ...
*/

Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong
thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright
header on both C and H files at development time.

> >
> > So it would be good to figure this out before people start spamming
> > the lists with all kinds of mass conversions and checkpatch fixes
> > for licensing..
>
> I tried solving this with a macro in the first place and ran into issues:
>
> - Does not work in headers, especially not in UAPI ones

Make headers_install could replace such macros by SPDX comments when
installing on userspace.

> - Breaks in assembly, boot and other special source files. There was no
> easy solution to that and the result would have been to have macros in
> some files and not in others.

At the end, we have different markups, depending on the file type.
I guess the main problem of using a macro is that a module composed
by multiple C files will end by defining it multiple times. Not sure
if gcc would do the right thing on grouping everything altogether
and producing the right equivalent to MODULE_LICENSE().

Also, at least on media, I found cases where the same module
has multiple licenses, e. g. some files that are grouped together on
a module are GPL v2 only, while others are GPL v2+.

> So the fallback was to use a comment and Linus decided the '//' style.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>

Thanks,
Mauro

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-22 12:51    [W:0.128 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site