Re: [PATCH 1/8] crypto: Convert dual BSD 3-Clause/GPL 2.0 boilerplate to SPDX identifier

Ard Biesheuvel
2023-06-08T09:07:23Z

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 11:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:37:33AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 16:38, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 1:42 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Replace license boilerplate for dual BSD-3-Clause/GPL 2.0 (only or
> > > > later) with corresponding SPDX license identifier.
> > >
> > > This is at least the fourth or fifth time (I'm losing track) where you
> > > have incorrectly assumed a particular non-GPL license text matches a
> > > particular SPDX identifier without (apparently) checking.
> > >
> >
> > What exactly does 'checking' entail here? There is no guidance in
> > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst on how to perform this
> > comparison.
> >
> > Also, checkpatch now complains about missing SPDX identifiers, which
> > is what triggered this effort. Should it stop doing that?
> >
> > > Bagas, I urge that you learn more about the nature of SPDX identifiers
> > > before submitting any further patches at least involving replacement
> > > of non-GPL notices with SPDX identifiers. For this unprecedented
> > > license notice replacement initiative to have any legitimacy it must
> > > attempt to apply SPDX identifiers correctly.
> > >
> >
> > Since we're in language pedantic mode: it must do more than attempt,
> > it must apply them correctly, period.
> >
> > Arguably, this is an 'attempt to apply SPDX identifiers correctly' on
> > Bagas's part, which apparently falls short (and I may be guilty of the
> > same for some arch crypto code)
> >
> > So what is the ambition here: do we just leave the ambiguous ones as-is?
>
> I recommend yes, leave them as-is until the legal people who actually
> care about having SPDX lines in all of the files take the time to do the
> work to resolve these issues.
>
> Remember, they are the ones asking for it, no need for us to do their
> work for them :)
>

Good point.