From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754816AbdKINra (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:47:30 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:55490 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754268AbdKINr3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:47:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:47:40 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Berg , Takashi Iwai , Jiri Kosina , Ciaran Farrell , Christopher De Nicolo , Jeff Mahoney , Vojtech Pavlik , Mel Gorman , Hannes Reinecke , Alan Cox , Christoph Hellwig , Russell King , "Theodore Ts'o" , "Darrick J. Wong" , Kate Stewart , Philippe Ombredanne Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] driver core: Remove redundant license text Message-ID: <20171109134740.GD6545@kroah.com> References: <20171107163009.13544-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> <20171107163009.13544-5-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> <20171108182630.GP22894@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171108182630.GP22894@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:26:30PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:30:09PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Now that the SPDX tag is in all driver core files, that identifies the > > license in a specific and legally-defined manner. > > Takashi and Jiri mentioned that the effort to add SPDX tags to files which did > not have licensing was discussed at the maintainers summit and it was agreed > upon there that this made sense. That is wonderful. > > Naturally, even despite this, some still have their own questions about this > work [0]. And some others seem to actually have pointed out that the work might > have some technical issues [1] likely worth considering. > > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171108151121.GC10374@infradead.org > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171108171938.7df66c65@alans-desktop > > > So the extra GPL text wording can be removed > > Highlight *removed* > > > as it is no longer needed at all. > > This secondary however was not. Was not what? Discussed? Yes it was. I think the lwn.net article even says so. > But this begs the question that if there is still questions, issues pointed > out, and request for a bit more open discussion about the *first* SPDX effort > of adding a tag to files which have no license, if there was *any* due process > for creating consensus for also going along with this *secondary* SPDX effort > of license *simplification* by replacing old boiler plate license tags with an > SPDX tag. > > At least internally within SUSE I can say so far that we are surprised by these > patches and work. We did not know, and this is the first of communication of > such effort. > > Don't get me wrong, these simplifications make perfect sense to me! But in > dealing with licensing considerations before on Linux I've learned through > feedback from you, Alan, and Ted and others to also be *extremely* careful and > sensitive about licensing annotation matters, and this type of change seems to > likely deserve a bit more community consensus than what this seems to be > getting. > > Not even an RFC. So why rush this work in? I don't post RFCs :) As for "rush", not really, might as well do it sometime, so I've created a bunch of patches and merged some of them. It's going to be a lot of work, someone had to start it :) Thomas is working on a document to describe this, hopefully it will be done soon. > > This is done on a quest to remove the 700+ different ways that files in > > the kernel describe the GPL license text. And there's unneeded stuff > > like the address (sometimes incorrect) for the FSF which is never > > needed. > > Completely agreed, all this stuff is rather silly, however which tag is used, > when, and how seems to have never been discussed and vetted anywhere to my > knowledge. "which" tag is just SPDX, that's easy. As for "when and how", I don't understand the question. > Below I leave two examples of the patch, but leave in place the diffstat. I don't understand, do you object to the patches? Do you not think they should be merged? If so, please let me know. thanks, greg k-h