From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtprelay0009.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.9]:49139 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753742AbdLNSyn (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:54:43 -0500 Message-ID: <1513277679.27409.83.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier From: Joe Perches To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Dhaval Shah , hyun.kwon@xilinx.com, michal.simek@xilinx.com, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:54:39 -0800 In-Reply-To: <16301043.Lbu0ahMgBI@avalon> References: <20171208123537.18718-1-dhaval23031987@gmail.com> <7339763.I7jApfYMM6@avalon> <1513276340.27409.77.camel@perches.com> <16301043.Lbu0ahMgBI@avalon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.