From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: SPDX-License-Identifier Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:53:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20150226215318.GB10204@amd> References: <20140221160442.GA17506@kroah.com> <5307790A.4050806@monstr.eu> <20140221161246.GM31902@saruman.home> <53077C5F.9000407@monstr.eu> <54CF9B12.2070807@denx.de> <20150202160622.GA9852@kroah.com> <54D24BA4.3070509@denx.de> <20150205064130.GB22075@kroah.com> <20150225214950.GB29527@amd> <20150226102650.7407cf02@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150226102650.7407cf02@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: One Thousand Gnomes Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stefan Roese , monstr@monstr.eu, balbi@ti.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Wolfgang Denk List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu 2015-02-26 10:26:50, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > So that GPL header at begining of each file becomes one line... and so > > that if it is BSD/GPL dual licensed is plain to see, and I don't have > > to read the notices saying "oh this is gpl.. but if you want to, > > delete gpl above and use license below". > > That won't happen though. You'd require every single corporate legal > department of every large company that touched the file to agree that the > SPDX was equivalent to the content, and some of them probably won't. > Lawyers don't seem to believe in #include Umm. I'd still like to see SPDX where corporate lawyers allow that, and for new files. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html