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

Michal Simek
2018-01-08T12:30:53Z

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@xilinx.com) and Hyun.kwon@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