From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch/x86/kvm/ioapic: Remove license boilerplate with bad FSF address
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 13:26:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bfe5477e-7340-468a-af3f-192adc451c2d@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2025072818-revoke-eggnog-459a@gregkh>
On 28/07/2025 17.50, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place"
>>> anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here.
>>> But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's
>>> rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX
>>> license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser*
>>> General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the
>>> right choice here.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier
>>
>> If you look at the LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 file, it says to use:
>> SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
>>
>> as the kernel's SPDX level is older than you might think.
>>
>> Also, doesn't the scripts/spdxcheck.pl tool object to the "or-later"
>> when you run it on the tree with this change in it?
>
> Ugh, sorry, no, it lists both, the tool should have been fine. I was
> reading the text of the file, not the headers at the top of it. My
> fault.
By the way, is there a reason why LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 suggests only
the old variant:
For 'GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or any later
version' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
... while LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 suggests both:
For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
or
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
That looks somewhat inconsistent to me... Should the LGPL files be updated?
Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-01 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-28 15:28 [PATCH v2] arch/x86/kvm/ioapic: Remove license boilerplate with bad FSF address Thomas Huth
2025-07-28 15:36 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-07-28 15:46 ` Thomas Huth
2025-07-28 15:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-08-01 11:26 ` Thomas Huth [this message]
2025-08-02 7:56 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-08-19 23:12 ` Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bfe5477e-7340-468a-af3f-192adc451c2d@redhat.com \
--to=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox