[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Dhaval Shah]

SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
related drivers.

Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c  | 5 +----
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h  | 5 +----
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c  | 5 +----
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c  | 5 +----
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h  | 5 +----
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c | 5 +----
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h | 5 +----
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c  | 5 +----
 drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h  | 5 +----
 9 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
index 522cdfdd3345..2e5daf7dba1a 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video DMA
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #include <linux/dma/xilinx_dma.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h
index e95d136c153a..5aec4d17eb21 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video DMA
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #ifndef __XILINX_VIP_DMA_H__
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c
index 9c49d1d10bee..20a68a65602b 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Test Pattern Generator
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #include <linux/device.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c
index 311259129504..5f7efa9f093e 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video IP Core
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #include <linux/clk.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h
index 42fee2026815..ba939dd52818 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video IP Core
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #ifndef __XILINX_VIP_H__
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c
index d881cf09876d..cb9ab2c15952 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video IP Composite Device
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #include <linux/list.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h
index faf6b6e80b3b..39daa030679e 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video IP Composite Device
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #ifndef __XILINX_VIPP_H__
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c
index 01c750edcac5..0ae0208d7529 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video Timing Controller
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #include <linux/clk.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h
index e1bb2cfcf428..90cf44245283 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video Timing Controller
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */
 
 #ifndef __XILINX_VTC_H__
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Dhaval,

Thank you for the patch.

On Friday, 8 December 2017 14:35:37 EET Dhaval Shah wrote:
> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> related drivers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c  | 5 +----
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h  | 5 +----
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c  | 5 +----
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c  | 5 +----
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h  | 5 +----
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c | 5 +----
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h | 5 +----
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c  | 5 +----
>  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h  | 5 +----

How about addressing drivers/media/platform/xilinx/Makefile, drivers/media/
platform/xilinx/Kconfig and include/dt-bindings/media/xilinx-vip.h as well ? 
If you're fine with that I can make the change when applying, there's no need 
to resubmit the patch.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Dhaval Shah]

Hi Laurent Pinchart,

Thanks a lot for the review.

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dhaval,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Friday, 8 December 2017 14:35:37 EET Dhaval Shah wrote:
> > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > related drivers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c  | 5 +----
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h  | 5 +----
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c  | 5 +----
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c  | 5 +----
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h  | 5 +----
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c | 5 +----
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h | 5 +----
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c  | 5 +----
> >  drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h  | 5 +----
>
> How about addressing drivers/media/platform/xilinx/Makefile, drivers/media/
> platform/xilinx/Kconfig and include/dt-bindings/media/xilinx-vip.h as well ?
> If you're fine with that I can make the change when applying, there's no need
> to resubmit the patch.

Sorry, I forgot to update in those files. Thanks for that. I am fine
with what you said. Please do that change as you said.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530
Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com> escreveu:

> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> related drivers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>

Hi Dhaval,

You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
touching at the driver's license tags.

Sorry,
Mauro

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 15:05 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530
> Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com> escreveu:
> 
> > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > related drivers.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> 
> Hi Dhaval,
> 
> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
> without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> touching at the driver's license tags.

And even a maintainer may not have the sole right
to modify a license.

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:26:27 -0800
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> escreveu:

> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 15:05 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530
> > Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >   
> > > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > > related drivers.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>  
> > 
> > Hi Dhaval,
> > 
> > You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
> > without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> > touching at the driver's license tags.  
> 
> And even a maintainer may not have the sole right
> to modify a license.

Very true. I was actually expecting a patch like that either authored
or explicitly sanctioned by either one of those developers:

Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com> (supporter:XILINX VIDEO IP CORES)
Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> (supporter:ARM/ZYNQ ARCHITECTURE)

As they own an @xilinx.com, we could assume that an email from
their corporate accounts to be official.

Thanks,
Mauro

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Mauro,

On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > related drivers.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> 
> Hi Dhaval,
> 
> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
> without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> touching at the driver's license tags.

The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause any 
issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of any of the 
10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the last kernel 
release.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
> 
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > > related drivers.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Hi Dhaval,
> > 
> > You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
> > without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> > touching at the driver's license tags.
> 
> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause any 
> issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of any of the 
> 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the last kernel 
> release.

Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
explicit license is different than removing the license
text itself.

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Joe,

On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>> related drivers.
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> >> 
> >> Hi Dhaval,
> >> 
> >> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid
> >> that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> >> touching at the driver's license tags.
> > 
> > The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause any
> > issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of any of
> > the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the last
> > kernel release.
> 
> 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. 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. 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.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Joe Perches]

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.

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Joe,

(CC'ing Greg and adding context for easier understanding)

On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>> 
> >>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid
> >>>> that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a
> >>>> patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>> 
> >>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> >>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of
> >>> any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the
> >>> last kernel release.\0\0\0
> >> 
> >> 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...

But this patch only removes the following text:

- * 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.

and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.

> > 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.

But still manually reviewed as far as I know.

> > 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.

Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.

This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon at 
the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment on this ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> (CC'ing Greg and adding context for easier understanding)
> 
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > >>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > >>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > >>>>> related drivers.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Hi Dhaval,
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid
> > >>>> that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a
> > >>>> patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> > >>> 
> > >>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> > >>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of
> > >>> any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the
> > >>> last kernel release.
> > >> 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...
> 
> But this patch only removes the following text:
> 
> - * 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.
> 
> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> 
> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon at 
> the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment on this ?

Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
summarize it?

thanks,

greg k-h

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Greg,

On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab 
wrote:
> >>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> >>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't
> >>>>>> accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> >>>>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder
> >>>>> of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in
> >>>>> the last kernel release.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 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...
> > 
> > But this patch only removes the following text:
> > 
> > - * 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.
> > 
> > and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> > 
> >>> 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.
> > 
> > But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> > 
> >>> 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.
> > 
> > Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> > 
> > This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon
> > at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment
> > on this ?
> 
> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
> summarize it?

In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted https://
patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces

+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
[...]
- *
- * 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.

in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver (drivers/media/platform/
xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it, 
stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an explicit ack 
from the official driver's maintainers. My position is that such a change 
doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to track all copyright 
holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack from the respective 
maintainers.

On a side note, Joe pointed out that some files contains BSD license text 
similar to

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

If we follow the text of the license strictly it can be argued that such text 
can't be replaced by an SPDX license identifier without breaching the license.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab 
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > >>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > >>>>>>> related drivers.
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> > >>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't
> > >>>>>> accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> > >>>>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder
> > >>>>> of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in
> > >>>>> the last kernel release.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 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...
> > > 
> > > But this patch only removes the following text:
> > > 
> > > - * 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.
> > > 
> > > and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> > > 
> > >>> 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.
> > > 
> > > But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> > > 
> > >>> 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.
> > > 
> > > Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> > > 
> > > This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon
> > > at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment
> > > on this ?
> > 
> > Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
> > summarize it?
> 
> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted https://
> patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> 
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> [...]
> - *
> - * 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.
> 
> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver (drivers/media/platform/
> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it, 
> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an explicit ack 
> from the official driver's maintainers. My position is that such a change 
> doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to track all copyright 
> holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack from the respective 
> maintainers.

Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
copyright is either.

BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
as being acceptable.

So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)

> On a side note, Joe pointed out that some files contains BSD license text 
> similar to
> 
>  *    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>  *      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 
> If we follow the text of the license strictly it can be argued that such text 
> can't be replaced by an SPDX license identifier without breaching the license.

That's not really true, see Thomas's patch series that adds the BSD
license to the kernel source tree in a way that preserves the license
text and legality of it all.  It follows the agreed-apon process
documented in the REUSE Inititive which is driven by the FSFE:
	https://reuse.software/

Once Thomas's series is merged, and we've cleaned up all of the GPL
boilerplate text, then we can start to worry about the BSD license mess :)

Does this help?

greg k-h

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:

> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:  
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:  
> > > >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > > >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:  
> > > >>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > > >>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab   
> > wrote:  
> > > >>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:  
> > > >>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > > >>>>>>> related drivers.
> > > >>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>  
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> > > >>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't
> > > >>>>>> accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.  
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> > > >>>>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder
> > > >>>>> of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in
> > > >>>>> the last kernel release.  
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> 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...  
> > > > 
> > > > But this patch only removes the following text:
> > > > 
> > > > - * 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.
> > > > 
> > > > and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> > > >   
> > > >>> 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.  
> > > > 
> > > > But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> > > >   
> > > >>> 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.  
> > > > 
> > > > Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> > > > 
> > > > This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon
> > > > at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment
> > > > on this ?  
> > > 
> > > Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
> > > summarize it?  
> > 
> > In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted https://
> > patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> > 
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > [...]
> > - *
> > - * 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.
> > 
> > in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver (drivers/media/platform/
> > xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it, 
> > stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an explicit ack 
> > from the official driver's maintainers. My position is that such a change 
> > doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to track all copyright 
> > holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack from the respective 
> > maintainers.  
> 
> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> copyright is either.
> 
> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> as being acceptable.
> 
> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
> give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. 

I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text 
without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.


Thanks,
Mauro

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Mauro,

On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> >>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
> >>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
> >>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
> >>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
> >>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 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...
> >>>> 
> >>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
> >>>> 
> >>>> - * 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.
> >>>> 
> >>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>> 
> >>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> >>>> 
> >>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
> >>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
> >>>> could you comment on this ?
> >>> 
> >>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
> >>> summarize it?
> >> 
> >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> >> 
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> [...]
> >> - *
> >> - * 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.
> >> 
> >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> >> (drivers/media/platform/
> >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
> >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
> >> from the respective maintainers.
> > 
> > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> > copyright is either.
> > 
> > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> > now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> > as being acceptable.
> > 
> > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
> > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
> 
> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
> 
> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.

If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general 
approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket 
approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that 
correct ? That is reasonable for me.

In that case, could the fact that commit

commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100

    USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/

add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a 
blanket approval ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Dhaval Shah]

Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>> >>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
>> >>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
>> >>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
>> >>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
>> >>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
>> >>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
>> >>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 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...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - * 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
>> >>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
>> >>>> could you comment on this ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
>> >>> summarize it?
>> >>
>> >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
>> >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>> >>
>> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> >> [...]
>> >> - *
>> >> - * 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.
>> >>
>> >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
>> >> (drivers/media/platform/
>> >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
>> >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
>> >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
>> >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
>> >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
>> >> from the respective maintainers.
>> >
>> > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
>> > copyright is either.
>> >
>> > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
>> > now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
>> > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
>> > as being acceptable.
>> >
>> > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
>> > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
>> > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
>> > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
>> > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
>> > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>>
>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>
>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>
> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
> approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
> correct ? That is reasonable for me.
>
> In that case, could the fact that commit
>
> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>
>     USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>
> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
> blanket approval ?
>
I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
Simek(michal.simek at xilinx.com) and Hyun.kwon at xilinx.com ACK this patch
then it will go into mainline?
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530
Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >> >>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >> >>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> >> >>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
> >> >>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
> >> >>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
> >> >>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
> >> >>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> 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...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> - * 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.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> 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.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> 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.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
> >> >>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
> >> >>>> could you comment on this ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
> >> >>> summarize it?
> >> >>
> >> >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> >> >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> >> >>
> >> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> - *
> >> >> - * 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> >> >> (drivers/media/platform/
> >> >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> >> >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> >> >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> >> >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
> >> >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
> >> >> from the respective maintainers.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> >> > copyright is either.
> >> >
> >> > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> >> > now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> >> > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> >> > as being acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> >> > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
> >> > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> >> > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> >> > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> >> > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
> >>
> >> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
> >>
> >> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> >> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> >> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
> >
> > If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
> > approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
> > approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
> > correct ? That is reasonable for me.
> >
> > In that case, could the fact that commit
> >
> > commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> > Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
> >
> >     USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
> >
> > add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
> > blanket approval ?
> >
> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
> Simek(michal.simek at xilinx.com) and Hyun.kwon at xilinx.com ACK this patch
> then it will go into mainline?

I would wait for their feedback.

Thanks,
Mauro

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Michal Simek]

Hi guys,

On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530
> Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com> escreveu:
> 
>> Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
>> <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Mauro,
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
>>>>>>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
>>>>>>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
>>>>>>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - * 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
>>>>>>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
>>>>>>>> could you comment on this ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
>>>>>>> summarize it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
>>>>>> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> - *
>>>>>> - * 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
>>>>>> (drivers/media/platform/
>>>>>> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
>>>>>> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
>>>>>> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
>>>>>> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
>>>>>> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
>>>>>> from the respective maintainers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
>>>>> copyright is either.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
>>>>> now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
>>>>> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
>>>>> as being acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
>>>>> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
>>>>> give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
>>>>> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
>>>>> speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
>>>>> with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>>>
>>>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
>>>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
>>>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>>>
>>> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
>>> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
>>> approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
>>> correct ? That is reasonable for me.
>>>
>>> In that case, could the fact that commit
>>>
>>> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
>>> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>> Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>>>
>>>     USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>>>
>>> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
>>> blanket approval ?
>>>
>> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
>> Simek(michal.simek at xilinx.com) and Hyun.kwon at xilinx.com ACK this patch
>> then it will go into mainline?
> 
> I would wait for their feedback.

Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have
already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago.

Thanks,
Michal

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Michal,

On Monday, 18 December 2017 09:32:12 EET Michal Simek wrote:
> On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chehab wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> copyright holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX license header in the last kernel release.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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...
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> - * 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.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
> >>>>>>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
> >>>>>>>> could you comment on this ?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care
> >>>>>>> to summarize it?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> >>>>>> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>> - *
> >>>>>> - * 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.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> >>>>>> (drivers/media/platform/
> >>>>>> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected
> >>>>>> it, stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> >>>>>> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> >>>>>> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need
> >>>>>> to track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit
> >>>>>> ack from the respective maintainers.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> >>>>> copyright is either.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> >>>>> now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> >>>>> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> >>>>> as being acceptable.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> >>>>> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at
> >>>>> least give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> >>>>> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good
> >>>>> to speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in
> >>>>> contact with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> >>>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> >>>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
> >>> 
> >>> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
> >>> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a
> >>> blanket approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar
> >>> patches. Is that correct ? That is reasonable for me.
> >>> 
> >>> In that case, could the fact that commit
> >>> 
> >>> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> >>> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> >>> Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
> >>> 
> >>>     USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
> >>> 
> >>> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such
> >>> a blanket approval ?
> >> 
> >> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
> >> Simek(michal.simek at xilinx.com) and Hyun.kwon at xilinx.com ACK this patch
> >> then it will go into mainline?
> > 
> > I would wait for their feedback.
> 
> Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have
> already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago.

Could you ask them to approve this kind of change globally for all Xilinx 
sources files (or reject it globally if they want to do so) ? I don't want to 
go through the same hassle for every single driver.

On a side note, SPDX headers have been added to several Xilinx-owned files 
already, you can use that information in your internal discussions if it 
helps.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Michal Simek]

Hi Laurent,

On 18.12.2017 09:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Monday, 18 December 2017 09:32:12 EET Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>>>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chehab wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copyright holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX license header in the last kernel release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - * 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
>>>>>>>>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
>>>>>>>>>> could you comment on this ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care
>>>>>>>>> to summarize it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
>>>>>>>> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> - *
>>>>>>>> - * 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
>>>>>>>> (drivers/media/platform/
>>>>>>>> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected
>>>>>>>> it, stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
>>>>>>>> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
>>>>>>>> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need
>>>>>>>> to track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit
>>>>>>>> ack from the respective maintainers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
>>>>>>> copyright is either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
>>>>>>> now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
>>>>>>> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
>>>>>>> as being acceptable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
>>>>>>> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at
>>>>>>> least give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
>>>>>>> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good
>>>>>>> to speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in
>>>>>>> contact with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
>>>>>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
>>>>>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
>>>>> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a
>>>>> blanket approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar
>>>>> patches. Is that correct ? That is reasonable for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, could the fact that commit
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
>>>>> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>>>>>
>>>>>     USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>>>>>
>>>>> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such
>>>>> a blanket approval ?
>>>>
>>>> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
>>>> Simek(michal.simek at xilinx.com) and Hyun.kwon at xilinx.com ACK this patch
>>>> then it will go into mainline?
>>>
>>> I would wait for their feedback.
>>
>> Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have
>> already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago.
> 
> Could you ask them to approve this kind of change globally for all Xilinx 
> sources files (or reject it globally if they want to do so) ? I don't want to 
> go through the same hassle for every single driver.
> 
> On a side note, SPDX headers have been added to several Xilinx-owned files 
> already, you can use that information in your internal discussions if it 
> helps.

As was said in this thread. One thing is if you simply add that one line
or if you add and remove. We are waiting for response from Legal to know
their opinion.

Anyway Xilinx is using SPDX license header in U-Boot project for years
already. This change started there in 2013 and I have never heard about
any problem connected to this.

>From my point of view it is good that this process finally started.
I have touched it in past here
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/21/21
and I hope that there won't be any problem with this but let's see.

Thanks,
Michal

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Michal Simek]

Hi Mauro,

On 18.12.2017 08:32, Michal Simek wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530
>> Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com> escreveu:
>>
>>> Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
>>> <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Mauro,
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
>>>>>>>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
>>>>>>>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - * 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
>>>>>>>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
>>>>>>>>> could you comment on this ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
>>>>>>>> summarize it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
>>>>>>> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> - *
>>>>>>> - * 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
>>>>>>> (drivers/media/platform/
>>>>>>> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
>>>>>>> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
>>>>>>> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
>>>>>>> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
>>>>>>> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
>>>>>>> from the respective maintainers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
>>>>>> copyright is either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
>>>>>> now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
>>>>>> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
>>>>>> as being acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
>>>>>> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
>>>>>> give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
>>>>>> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
>>>>>> speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
>>>>>> with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
>>>>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
>>>>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
>>>> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
>>>> approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
>>>> correct ? That is reasonable for me.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, could the fact that commit
>>>>
>>>> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
>>>> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>> Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>>>>
>>>>     USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>>>>
>>>> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
>>>> blanket approval ?
>>>>
>>> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
>>> Simek(michal.simek at xilinx.com) and Hyun.kwon at xilinx.com ACK this patch
>>> then it will go into mainline?
>>
>> I would wait for their feedback.
> 
> Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have
> already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago.

There is no concern from xilinx legal about this change that's why

Acked-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>

Thanks,
Michal

[PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:02:21 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> escreveu:

> Hi Mauro,
> 
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:  
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:  
> > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > >>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:  
> > >>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:  
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:  
> > >>>>>>>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:  
> > >>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > >>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@gmail.com>  
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> > >>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
> > >>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.  
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
> > >>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
> > >>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
> > >>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.  
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> 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...  
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> - * 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.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> > >>>>   
> > >>>>>> 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.  
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> > >>>>   
> > >>>>>> 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.  
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
> > >>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
> > >>>> could you comment on this ?  
> > >>> 
> > >>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
> > >>> summarize it?  
> > >> 
> > >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> > >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> > >> 
> > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > >> [...]
> > >> - *
> > >> - * 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.
> > >> 
> > >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> > >> (drivers/media/platform/
> > >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> > >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> > >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> > >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
> > >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
> > >> from the respective maintainers.  
> > > 
> > > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> > > copyright is either.
> > > 
> > > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> > > now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> > > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> > > as being acceptable.
> > > 
> > > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> > > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
> > > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> > > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> > > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> > > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)  
> > 
> > Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
> > 
> > I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> > without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> > to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.  
> 
> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general 
> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket 
> approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that 
> correct ? That is reasonable for me.

I doubt any Company's legal department would give a blanket approval for
others to touch on their licensing text.

> 
> In that case, could the fact that commit
> 
> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
> 
>     USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
> 
> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a 
> blanket approval ?

If you look at this patch's summary:

 651 files changed, 651 insertions(+)

And on the patch contents itself, it is just adding a SPDX header. 
It doesn't remove any text from the license.

On Dhaval's patch, it is not only adding SPDX header. It is also removing
the legal text from it:

diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
index 522cdfdd3345..2e5daf7dba1a 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Xilinx Video DMA
  *
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
  *
  * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>
  *           Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
- *
- * 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.
  */

And that's the part I'm more concerned about: we should give Xilinx
enough time to review and approve such change.

Thanks,
Mauro