lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 01/27] staging: ccree: SPDXify driver
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Philippe Ombredanne
<pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote:
> Gilad,
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com> wrote:
>> Replace verbatim GPL v2 copy with SPDX tag.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
>
> <snip>
>
>> --- a/drivers/staging/ccree/cc_crypto_ctx.h
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/ccree/cc_crypto_ctx.h
>> @@ -1,18 +1,5 @@
>> -/*
>> - * Copyright (C) 2012-2017 ARM Limited or its affiliates.
>> - *
>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> - *
>> - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>> - * GNU General Public License for more details.
>> - *
>> - * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>> - * along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>> - */
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
>> +/* Copyright (C) 2012-2018 ARM Limited or its affiliates. */
>
> Thank you for using the SPDX tags!
>
> Now, while I appreciate your attempt to use the latest and greatest
> SPDX license id definitions (published by SPDX a few days agao), THIS
> IS NOT a welcomed initiative. Please stick instead to use ONLY the
> SPDX license ids that are defined in Thomas doc patches [1]: e.g. use
> instead: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 and please DO NOT USE
> GPL-2.0-only for now.

Oh dear. It seems I have been over enthusiastic with this.
I shall post a revised patch set. Sorry for the noise.

>
> The rationale is simple: from a kernel standpoint we cannot depend on
> the latest changes of an external spec such as SPDX (and I am involved
> with SPDX alright but I am wearing a kernel hat here). This is why
> things have been carefully documented for the kernel proper by Thomas.
> It is perfectly fine at some times in the future to adopt the newest
> license ids, but this will have to happen in an orderly fashion with a
> proper doc update and the eventual tree-wide changes to update every
> occurrence. This cannot happen any other way or this would defeat the
> whole purpose to have clear licensing kernel-wide: using the latest
> and greatest introduces variations and creates a mess that we want to
> avoid in the first place.
>
> CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/28/323
>

Just a thought - it might be useful to have an SPDX revision as part of the tag,
e.g.

SPDX-3.0-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only

It seems it will make transitions such as this easier, me thinks.

Maybe something to consider for SPDX 3.1 :-)

Thanks,
Gilad



--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker

"If you take a class in large-scale robotics, can you end up in a
situation where the homework eats your dog?"
-- Jean-Baptiste Queru

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-14 23:16    [W:0.074 / U:1.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site