From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from orbyte.nwl.cc (orbyte.nwl.cc [151.80.46.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64AA21D63F9 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:07:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=151.80.46.58 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730221638; cv=none; b=pV7I48vu/t2C6NtYbdWc0KJ/FuV0PlNBPxyCTkFxBqFP9MfXLg9yvq+yn4+YLIR6CNhVIK5woT85aFx9IAAAzfh7F9yNsO3SFRCG84ZQYOk+sYoGVoMVUp8SU/tqMGvqH8QYENsd/NgIeS1+56fEKyH6ECPBPp07yTOqhmEQ2ng= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730221638; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mxTx4EePBebUku8qvYbvhhfN6GlBXsmj7R7v8YbO1ts=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WCVc5Ak8m6JxdMROzKv5Drs9igwRdRC8zIOoh2DT+qeVXIsYe8a+8BNRPWs8CJPiZvHx8RZSmMVSKILauphnQiOrcxu9WE2dNL3qhLRVsc6Flm8EPaipZMLBZoY8C2Sbzwku/D8+UfPA0sqna1kZGvHB6O87I7Bfo439UNhSp04= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nwl.cc; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nwl.cc; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nwl.cc header.i=@nwl.cc header.b=WHZHVuRD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=151.80.46.58 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nwl.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nwl.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nwl.cc header.i=@nwl.cc header.b="WHZHVuRD" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nwl.cc; s=mail2022; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ZoeCiwkwE3IvOHNshSU8rlFX2JbsipBrmu06fTewhB0=; b=WHZHVuRDTQ+mQPLfKr2R2zOC12 aQBYuIEjWodHROmfRyrpp6Mgmmdc5HSKO0Z7OQsLwNtPc6RcSx7pwjwDKfiInxwBZYFKg0Dk5bv1n QWZ/DfaiIEUP4uY1IiXxfjyMHQSA05QX7lJFJCbp5idIBik6S0QD1kqseo947edkYxifQDt5DADgd yj3Dtt+jlceOmGSErH2JS4rBghmj9XJsGzir/fXApuoN5NH2QGIyoqWyZqPHqHa8BeYLIM+X6pC8C d14TdfNoHYfxKPUsyKesMLycdsoJDxpWmi02THNf3PW7lHSZhep6Kk9Qyf8ue3wMF6GzDf1UqgfJm OqN5+P1g==; Received: from n0-1 by orbyte.nwl.cc with local (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1t5pgW-000000003MZ-0or7; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 18:07:12 +0100 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 18:07:12 +0100 From: Phil Sutter To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Engelhardt Subject: Re: [libnftnl PATCH] Use SPDX License Identifiers in headers Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Phil Sutter , Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Engelhardt References: <20241023200658.24205-1-phil@nwl.cc> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 03:40:55PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:04:49PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 10:06:57PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > diff --git a/examples/nft-chain-add.c b/examples/nft-chain-add.c > > > > index 13be982324180..fc2e939dae8b4 100644 > > > > --- a/examples/nft-chain-add.c > > > > +++ b/examples/nft-chain-add.c > > > > @@ -1,10 +1,7 @@ > > > > > > Maybe more intuitive to place > > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */ > > > > > > in the first line of this file? This is what was done in iproute2. > > > > Fine with me! I just semi-automatically replaced the license text block > > by this specifier and didn't care about its position. A quick check of > > how things are done in linux.git shows it's not entirely consistent > > there: When Thomas Gleixner did an equivalent to my patch in commit > > 0fdebc5ec2ca ("treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - > > gpl-2.0_56.RULE (part 1)"), he used double-slash comments, while Greg > > Kroah-Hartman chose to use multi-line comments in commit b24413180f56 > > ("License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no > > license"). Is this random or am I missing a detail? > > What I learnt in my crash course about license compliance is that this > SPDX stuff is for robots that parse source code. I suspect placing > this in the first line saves time parsing files for them. Sounds reasonable. I was merely wondering about the different comment styles, but I guess it won't matter since any robot has to expect both styles anyway. > For a human standpoint, to quickly look at the first line of each file > via script, then ... head -1 $file | sort | uniq -c. Speaking of each file, do we care about libnftnl's header files? > > BTW: Jan suggested to also (introd)use SPDX-FileCopyrightText label, but > > spdx.dev explicitly states: "Therefore, you should not remove or modify > > existing copyright notices in files when adding an SPDX ID."[1] What's > > your opinion about it? > > No idea, I hate legal stuff, really. I saw a room full of people > taking about SPDX. "I have seen things you people wouldn't believe ..." :D > Being pragmatic, I would do what I see people do around with this, and > they are just turning license text into SPDX license labels. ACK. > And getting back to the original topic, we only have to agree where to > place the SPDX license line for libnftnl. I don't have a strong > opinion on this, if you like your approach, that is fine by me. Line 1 is fine with me! I'll submit a v2. Thanks, Phil