[PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Andi Shyti]

Replace the original license statement with the SPDX identifier.

Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c                 | 18 ++++--------------
 include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h |  4 +---
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
index de7df20f8712..7ef68d45edfb 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
@@ -1,17 +1,7 @@
-/*
- * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
- *	Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
- * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
- * (at your option) any later version.
- *
- * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
- * GNU General Public License for more details.
- */
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+//
+// Copyright (c) 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
+//      Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
 
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h b/include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h
index da79774078a7..8917f38c97c5 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h
@@ -2,9 +2,7 @@
  * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
  *	Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
  *
- * 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.
+ * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
  */
 
 #ifndef __SPI_S3C64XX_H
-- 
2.15.1

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com> wrote:
> Replace the original license statement with the SPDX identifier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c                 | 18 ++++--------------
>  include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h |  4 +---
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> index de7df20f8712..7ef68d45edfb 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> @@ -1,17 +1,7 @@
> -/*
> - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
> - *     Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
> - *
> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> - * (at your option) any later version.
> - *
> - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> - * GNU General Public License for more details.
> - */
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

Hi,

Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0.
Why changing the comment style?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

> +//
> +// Copyright (c) 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
> +//      Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
>
>  #include <linux/init.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
> diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h b/include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h
> index da79774078a7..8917f38c97c5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h
> +++ b/include/linux/platform_data/spi-s3c64xx.h
> @@ -2,9 +2,7 @@
>   * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
>   *     Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
>   *
> - * 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.
> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>   */
>
>  #ifndef __SPI_S3C64XX_H
> --
> 2.15.1
>

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 271 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:17:09AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com> wrote:

> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

> Why changing the comment style?

Apparently that's the thing for SPDX headers.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:17:09AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com> wrote:
>
>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
>> Why changing the comment style?
>
> Apparently that's the thing for SPDX headers.

Yes (although in sources one can find /* */ as well) but the rest of
comment does not have to be changed in that case. With quick grep
through sources I could not find such practice.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 635 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:13:26AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Apparently that's the thing for SPDX headers.

> Yes (although in sources one can find /* */ as well) but the rest of
> comment does not have to be changed in that case. With quick grep
> through sources I could not find such practice.

Yes, it's not great.  There was some discussion about it which you can
dig out of the archives indicating a desire to use C++ comments more but
there's not been much effort to communicate that and there's no tooling
to back it up so it's all messy.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Krzysztof,

> > - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
> > - *     Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
> > - *
> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > - * (at your option) any later version.
> > - *
> > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> > - * GNU General Public License for more details.
> > - */
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> 

> Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0.

mmmhhh... isn't it deprecated from 2.0rc2? Current SPDX version
2.6 doesn't have GPL-2.0+ in the list of licenses.

https://spdx.org/licenses/

I can improve the commit log to state it more clearly. Would that
work?

BTW, is it really a change of license?

> Why changing the comment style?

That's SPDX, right? by adding the SPDX-License-Identifier the
GPLv2 statement becomes redundant and we can remove some lines.

Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org> wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>> > - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
>> > - *     Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
>> > - *
>> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>> > - * (at your option) any later version.
>> > - *
>> > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>> > - * GNU General Public License for more details.
>> > - */
>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>
>
>> Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0.
>
> mmmhhh... isn't it deprecated from 2.0rc2? Current SPDX version
> 2.6 doesn't have GPL-2.0+ in the list of licenses.
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/
>
> I can improve the commit log to state it more clearly. Would that
> work?

No. The license identifier is deprecated, not the license itself.
Instead the, the SPDX says: <<This new syntax supports the ability to
use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate
“or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+)>>. The spec [1] mentions it again:
"An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary"+" operator
suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later
version.  For example: GPL-2.0+"

Existing kernel sources follow this convention.

> BTW, is it really a change of license?

Yes, it is. Or maybe not license itself but it terms and specific
elements. GPL-2.0 does not say "any later option at your choice". Let
me quote:
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
"any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
published by the Free Software Foundation." [2]

What to add more here? GPL-2.0 only does not allow you to use any
later version ever published by FSF.

>
>> Why changing the comment style?
>
> That's SPDX, right? by adding the SPDX-License-Identifier the
> GPLv2 statement becomes redundant and we can remove some lines.

But it does not explain why existing comment has to be rewritten into //.

[1] https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Andi Shyti <andi-ahk0KpmfxKRAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>>> > - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
>>> > - *     Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
>>> > - *
>>> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>>> > - * (at your option) any later version.
>>> > - *
>>> > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>> > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>> > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>>> > - * GNU General Public License for more details.
>>> > - */
>>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>
>>
>>> Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0.
>>
>> mmmhhh... isn't it deprecated from 2.0rc2? Current SPDX version
>> 2.6 doesn't have GPL-2.0+ in the list of licenses.
>>
>> https://spdx.org/licenses/
>>
>> I can improve the commit log to state it more clearly. Would that
>> work?
>
> No. The license identifier is deprecated, not the license itself.
> Instead the, the SPDX says: <<This new syntax supports the ability to
> use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate
> “or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+)>>. The spec [1] mentions it again:
> "An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary"+" operator
> suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later
> version.  For example: GPL-2.0+"
>
> Existing kernel sources follow this convention.
>
>> BTW, is it really a change of license?
>
> Yes, it is. Or maybe not license itself but it terms and specific
> elements. GPL-2.0 does not say "any later option at your choice". Let
> me quote:
> "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
> "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
> conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
> the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
> version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
> published by the Free Software Foundation." [2]
>
> What to add more here? GPL-2.0 only does not allow you to use any
> later version ever published by FSF.
>
>>
>>> Why changing the comment style?
>>
>> That's SPDX, right? by adding the SPDX-License-Identifier the
>> GPLv2 statement becomes redundant and we can remove some lines.
>
> But it does not explain why existing comment has to be rewritten into //.
>
> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version
> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

IMHO you should refer to Thomas doc patches instead of looking for
details elsewhere [1]
They are the authoritative doc for the kernel.

CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman
CC: Thomas Gleixner

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Philippe Ombredanne
<pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>>> > - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
>>>> > - *     Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
>>>> > - *
>>>> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>>> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>>>> > - * (at your option) any later version.
>>>> > - *
>>>> > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>>> > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>>> > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>>>> > - * GNU General Public License for more details.
>>>> > - */
>>>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0.
>>>
>>> mmmhhh... isn't it deprecated from 2.0rc2? Current SPDX version
>>> 2.6 doesn't have GPL-2.0+ in the list of licenses.
>>>
>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/
>>>
>>> I can improve the commit log to state it more clearly. Would that
>>> work?
>>
>> No. The license identifier is deprecated, not the license itself.
>> Instead the, the SPDX says: <<This new syntax supports the ability to
>> use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate
>> “or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+)>>. The spec [1] mentions it again:
>> "An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary"+" operator
>> suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later
>> version.  For example: GPL-2.0+"
>>
>> Existing kernel sources follow this convention.
>>
>>> BTW, is it really a change of license?
>>
>> Yes, it is. Or maybe not license itself but it terms and specific
>> elements. GPL-2.0 does not say "any later option at your choice". Let
>> me quote:
>> "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
>> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
>> "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
>> conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
>> the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
>> version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
>> published by the Free Software Foundation." [2]
>>
>> What to add more here? GPL-2.0 only does not allow you to use any
>> later version ever published by FSF.
>>
>>>
>>>> Why changing the comment style?
>>>
>>> That's SPDX, right? by adding the SPDX-License-Identifier the
>>> GPLv2 statement becomes redundant and we can remove some lines.
>>
>> But it does not explain why existing comment has to be rewritten into //.
>>
>> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version
>> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>
> IMHO you should refer to Thomas doc patches instead of looking for
> details elsewhere [1]
> They are the authoritative doc for the kernel.

I was actually checking this with existing source code (after applying
these patches) and GPLv2.0+any_later was converted to "GPL-2.0+".
Let's look at specific example:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/946
"+ For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
+    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+"

I do not understand then whether you are agreeing or arguing with my point. :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof

>
> CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman
> CC: Thomas Gleixner
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Dear Krzysztof,

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Philippe Ombredanne
> <pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>
>>>>> > - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
>>>>> > - *     Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
>>>>> > - *
>>>>> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>>>> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>>>>> > - * (at your option) any later version.
>>>>> > - *
>>>>> > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>>>> > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>>>> > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>>>>> > - * GNU General Public License for more details.
>>>>> > - */
>>>>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0.
>>>>
>>>> mmmhhh... isn't it deprecated from 2.0rc2? Current SPDX version
>>>> 2.6 doesn't have GPL-2.0+ in the list of licenses.
>>>>
>>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/
>>>>
>>>> I can improve the commit log to state it more clearly. Would that
>>>> work?
>>>
>>> No. The license identifier is deprecated, not the license itself.
>>> Instead the, the SPDX says: <<This new syntax supports the ability to
>>> use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate
>>> “or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+)>>. The spec [1] mentions it again:
>>> "An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary"+" operator
>>> suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later
>>> version.  For example: GPL-2.0+"
>>>
>>> Existing kernel sources follow this convention.
>>>
>>>> BTW, is it really a change of license?
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. Or maybe not license itself but it terms and specific
>>> elements. GPL-2.0 does not say "any later option at your choice". Let
>>> me quote:
>>> "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
>>> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
>>> "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
>>> conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
>>> the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
>>> version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
>>> published by the Free Software Foundation." [2]
>>>
>>> What to add more here? GPL-2.0 only does not allow you to use any
>>> later version ever published by FSF.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why changing the comment style?
>>>>
>>>> That's SPDX, right? by adding the SPDX-License-Identifier the
>>>> GPLv2 statement becomes redundant and we can remove some lines.
>>>
>>> But it does not explain why existing comment has to be rewritten into //.
>>>
>>> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version
>>> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>
>> IMHO you should refer to Thomas doc patches instead of looking for
>> details elsewhere [1]
>> They are the authoritative doc for the kernel.
>
> I was actually checking this with existing source code (after applying
> these patches) and GPLv2.0+any_later was converted to "GPL-2.0+".
> Let's look at specific example:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/946
> "+ For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
> +    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+"
>
> I do not understand then whether you are agreeing or arguing with my point. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>>
>> CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> CC: Thomas Gleixner
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934

Here, this should be as a top line:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+


So I agree with the SPDX id but also pointing to the use of the C++ //
comment style as requested by Linus [1]

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/133
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/125
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/715
[4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/805

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Philippe Ombredanne
<pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote:
> Dear Krzysztof,
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Philippe Ombredanne
>> <pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>>
>>>>>> > - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd.
>>>>>> > - *     Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
>>>>>> > - *
>>>>>> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>>> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>>>>> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>>>>>> > - * (at your option) any later version.
>>>>>> > - *
>>>>>> > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>>>>> > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>>>>> > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>>>>>> > - * GNU General Public License for more details.
>>>>>> > - */
>>>>>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> mmmhhh... isn't it deprecated from 2.0rc2? Current SPDX version
>>>>> 2.6 doesn't have GPL-2.0+ in the list of licenses.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/
>>>>>
>>>>> I can improve the commit log to state it more clearly. Would that
>>>>> work?
>>>>
>>>> No. The license identifier is deprecated, not the license itself.
>>>> Instead the, the SPDX says: <<This new syntax supports the ability to
>>>> use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate
>>>> “or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+)>>. The spec [1] mentions it again:
>>>> "An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary"+" operator
>>>> suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later
>>>> version.  For example: GPL-2.0+"
>>>>
>>>> Existing kernel sources follow this convention.
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, is it really a change of license?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is. Or maybe not license itself but it terms and specific
>>>> elements. GPL-2.0 does not say "any later option at your choice". Let
>>>> me quote:
>>>> "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
>>>> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
>>>> "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
>>>> conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
>>>> the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
>>>> version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
>>>> published by the Free Software Foundation." [2]
>>>>
>>>> What to add more here? GPL-2.0 only does not allow you to use any
>>>> later version ever published by FSF.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why changing the comment style?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's SPDX, right? by adding the SPDX-License-Identifier the
>>>>> GPLv2 statement becomes redundant and we can remove some lines.
>>>>
>>>> But it does not explain why existing comment has to be rewritten into //.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version
>>>> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>> IMHO you should refer to Thomas doc patches instead of looking for
>>> details elsewhere [1]
>>> They are the authoritative doc for the kernel.
>>
>> I was actually checking this with existing source code (after applying
>> these patches) and GPLv2.0+any_later was converted to "GPL-2.0+".
>> Let's look at specific example:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/946
>> "+ For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
>> +    SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+"
>>
>> I do not understand then whether you are agreeing or arguing with my point. :)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>>
>>> CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>> CC: Thomas Gleixner
>>>
>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934
>
> Here, this should be as a top line:
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>
>
> So I agree with the SPDX id but also pointing to the use of the C++ //
> comment style as requested by Linus [1]

Thanks for the reference. I see that Linus prefers converting entire
comment into // style. I was not arguing about SPDX line but entire
existing copyright comment which follows it:

> +//
> +// Copyright (c) 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
> +//      Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>

Best regards,
Krzysztof

>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/133
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/125
> [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/715
> [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/805
>
> --
> Cordially
> Philippe Ombredanne

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Krzysztof,

> > Here, this should be as a top line:
> >
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> >
> >
> > So I agree with the SPDX id but also pointing to the use of the C++ //
> > comment style as requested by Linus [1]
> 
> Thanks for the reference. I see that Linus prefers converting entire
> comment into // style. I was not arguing about SPDX line but entire
> existing copyright comment which follows it:
> 
> > +//
> > +// Copyright (c) 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
> > +//      Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>

it just looks ugly to me to have something like

  // SPDX...
  
  /*
   * Copyright (c)...
   *      Jasw...
   */

I would make everything of the '//' style (I've also seen that
this is the trend also in other subsystems), but honestly I don't
really care. If you're strong on not moving entirely in '//' style
then I can resend it with the double comment style.

Andi

P.S. About GPLv2 vs GPLv2+ I checked and I will repost it keeping
the license as its original. Thanks!

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>> > Here, this should be as a top line:
>> >
>> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>> >
>> >
>> > So I agree with the SPDX id but also pointing to the use of the C++ //
>> > comment style as requested by Linus [1]
>>
>> Thanks for the reference. I see that Linus prefers converting entire
>> comment into // style. I was not arguing about SPDX line but entire
>> existing copyright comment which follows it:
>>
>> > +//
>> > +// Copyright (c) 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
>> > +//      Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@samsung.com>
>
> it just looks ugly to me to have something like
>
>   // SPDX...
>
>   /*
>    * Copyright (c)...
>    *      Jasw...
>    */
>
> I would make everything of the '//' style (I've also seen that
> this is the trend also in other subsystems), but honestly I don't
> really care. If you're strong on not moving entirely in '//' style
> then I can resend it with the double comment style.

Let's follow Linus' preference - entire commend converted as you did already.

Thanks,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 609 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:48:54AM +0900, Andi Shyti wrote:

> > > +//
> > > +// Copyright (c) 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
> > > +//      Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>

> it just looks ugly to me to have something like

>   // SPDX...

>   /*
>    * Copyright (c)...
>    *      Jasw...
>    */

> I would make everything of the '//' style (I've also seen that
> this is the trend also in other subsystems), but honestly I don't
> really care. If you're strong on not moving entirely in '//' style

Yes, my preference is to avoid a mixture like you've got there.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]