Re: [PATCH 0/6] Address issues with SPDX requirements and PEP-263

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Sep 2019, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 11:17:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Markus Heiser wrote:
> > > > Am 07.09.19 um 20:04 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> > > > > No idea. I would actually prefer to just remove the restriction, and let
> > > > > the SPDX header to be anywhere inside the first comment block inside a
> > > > > file [2].
> > > > > [2] I *suspect* that the restriction was added in order to make
> > > > >      ./scripts/spdxcheck.py to run faster and to avoid false positives.
> > > > >      Right now, if the maximum limit is removed (or set to a very high
> > > > >      value), there will be one false positive:
> > > 
> > > Nope. The intention was to have a well define place and format instead of
> > > everyone and his dog deciding to put it somewhere. SPDX is not intended to
> > > replace the existing licensing mess with some other randomly placed and
> > > formatted licensing mess.
> > 
> > I find the current style quite unaesthetic:
> > 
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > /*
> >  *  linux/mm/memory.c
> >  *
> >  *  Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994  Linus Torvalds
> >  */
> > 
> > I'd much rather see
> > 
> > /*
> >  * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> >  * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994  Linus Torvalds
> >  */
> > 
> > but I appreciate the desire to force it to be on the first line if at all
> > possible.
> 
> That style is inflicted upon you by Penguin Emperor Decree. :)

I'd also say that it's a rather tooling-friendly format which mandates a 
single-line representation, which will be less likely to be morphed into 
a zillion variants like the original boilerplates.

So the Penguin Emperor Decree also makes sense, which helps. ;-)

Thanks,

	Ingo