From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D26C433EF for ; Sun, 22 May 2022 18:13:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235686AbiEVSNO (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2022 14:13:14 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53286 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234665AbiEVSNO (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2022 14:13:14 -0400 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (unknown [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9038139B9E for ; Sun, 22 May 2022 11:13:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1653243176; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QqS5obm1DH0NxY/AXQctm+WAxZ3F7EdCQ0bS/Gx/X0k=; b=vIpa4Yw7UaA3P4nQX3E4KVWAQNraOW7gH3JKtDYXYarzZ/fdt4vIt0xMXnGn34KuWL+r09 Ic2uDaZHogXBDkPYjqHTQ7+D7fYqVMenlfvzrhRPvhyEIlHaKLdNelXAMK+n8Hb1qu/G97 ffRyOG60vk2lHa+c7LX7lVqaH/gL9Ck3ByYS2ASuGjO0urV53LMMilV997W2rHStjHWmI2 dTAlsZ+GFrooiZg5NI2X/QTfn4XkJn8W0ePJKVQSjP77wB/cBYWVMyqInSvQNvwYx5xIMm XWHe6KvLbYwUeFlzKI8T5EMoWR6OetnsvwbPB6PWdXFdAA/SsUxpVjtG6p+QIw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1653243176; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QqS5obm1DH0NxY/AXQctm+WAxZ3F7EdCQ0bS/Gx/X0k=; b=A19ml06A0PxmDRfnyIIMfBsVQn/TrnJ5dU8Q0pAClOrcjlK+xAnRZTCOs8IA/y0Tya5Sb5 MBZU5TU84/sGGbBg== To: Richard Fontana Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer , Jonathan Brassow Subject: Re: treewide: License cleanup - RedHat originated In-Reply-To: References: <165322121770.3770149.18166071018834854082.tglx@xen13> Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 20:12:55 +0200 Message-ID: <874k1higgo.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Richard! On Sun, May 22 2022 at 13:33, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 10:55 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > I assume you're selecting files that have some sort of Red Hat or > Sistina copyright notice. Just as a disclaimer, I can't speak to > copyrights in these files that may be held by other organizations or > individuals (and I can't say definitively whether any file bearing a > Red Hat or Sistina copyright notice has or retains any copyright owned > by Red Hat). With that said: > >> 1) this file is released under the gpl > > I am fine with saying that any Red Hat copyrights (including any > Sistina copyrights acquired by Red Hat) in these can be represented > with SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0. > > I would note that the following files did not seem to have any Red Hat > or Sistina copyright notices: > >> drivers/md/dm-log-writes.c >> drivers/md/dm-ps-queue-length.c >> drivers/md/dm-ps-service-time.c >> drivers/md/dm-unstripe.c >> drivers/md/dm-zero.c Oops, yes. They are clearly flagged as not Red Hat. >> 2) this file is released under the lgpl >> >> drivers/md/dm-core.h >> drivers/md/dm-log-userspace-base.c >> drivers/md/dm-log-userspace-transfer.c >> drivers/md/dm-log-userspace-transfer.h >> drivers/md/dm-log.c >> drivers/md/dm-rq.h >> drivers/md/dm.h >> include/linux/device-mapper.h >> include/linux/dm-dirty-log.h > > For these, if the question is just about what version of the LGPL we > should treat these as, I'd be fine with representing them as > SDPX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1. > > However, and I realize this may go beyond my 'remit' as someone > consulted for linux-spdx stuff or open some additional bag of worms, > I'm wondering if these would be better off just relicensed under > GPLv2, and thus represented as SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0. Even > treating this code as having been LGPLv2.x-licensed, this would be > authorized or at any rate contemplated by the largely-overlooked > LGPLv2.0/LGPLv2.1 section 3. Suggesting this because it would seem to > help marginally with some of the goals of this initiative and also > because it's not obvious to me why LGPL would have been preferred over > GPLv2 for these files to begin with, assuming they weren't copied from > some unrelated LGPL-licensed project. I've cc'd Jonathan Brassow and > Mike Snitzer in case they have any thoughts on this. Let's see :) Thanks, Thomas