Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] drivers: watchdog: Replace GPL license notice with SPDX identifier

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-05-14T06:33:00Z

On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 09:43:39AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 6:53 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/12/23 19:46, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 6:07 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c b/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c
> > >> index 504be461f992a9..822bf8905bf3ce 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c
> > >> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+
> > >> /*
> > >> * Watchdog driver for SiByte SB1 SoCs
> > >> *
> > >> @@ -38,10 +39,6 @@
> > >> * (c) Copyright 1996 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
> > >> * All Rights Reserved.
> > >> *
> > >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > >> - * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> > >> - * version 1 or 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't this be
> > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0 OR GPL-2.0
> > > (or in current SPDX notation GPL-1.0-only OR GPL-2.0-only) ?
> > >
> >
> > Nope, as it will fail spdxcheck.py. Also, SPDX specification [1]
> > doesn't have negation operator (NOT), thus the licensing requirement
> > on the above notice can't be expressed reliably in SPDX here.
> >
> > [1]: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/
>
> The GPL identifiers in recent versions of SPDX include an `-only` and
> an `-or-later` variant.

But Linux does not use the newer versions of SPDX given that we started
the conversion before the "-only" variant came out. Let's stick with
the original one please before worrying about converting to a newer
version of SPDX and mixing things up.

thanks,

greg k-h