From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:54:39 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier
In-Reply-To: <16301043.Lbu0ahMgBI@avalon>
References: <20171208123537.18718-1-dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
 <7339763.I7jApfYMM6@avalon> <1513276340.27409.77.camel@perches.com>
 <16301043.Lbu0ahMgBI@avalon>
Message-ID: <1513277679.27409.83.camel@perches.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Joe,

Hi Laurent.

> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> > explicit license is different than removing the license
> > text itself.
> 
> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.

I understand that.
At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
as that license states:

 *    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
etc...

> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel in one go 
> was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.

Not really, it was scripted.

> This is no different 
> than not including the full GPL license in every header file but only pointing 
> to it through its name and reference, as every kernel source file does.

Not every kernel source file had a license text
or a reference to another license file.