From: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
To: Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbianca@fsfe.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@linaro.org>,
Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V5 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 21:50:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOFm3uHr8Vi5dG054qzPmvkD1=urZy+u2pr0sRruBBXgRunkeA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b353bb05-e9ea-86b7-7f34-c4c0f6b308fb@fsfe.org>
Carmen,
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Carmen Bianca Bakker
<carmenbianca@fsfe.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since December, `GPL-2.0` is no longer the correct identifier for the
> licence. The American FSF has been in talks with the SPDX Workgroup to
> change it to `GPL-2.0-only`.
>
> See the rationale here:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html
>
> See the new canonical licence list here:
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/
>
> This change is valid for all GPL licences. Similarly, `GPL-2.0+` has
> been changed to `GPL-2.0-or-later`.
This is exactly to insulate against these kinds of changes that this
doc patch exists in the first place and documents what things mean for
the kernel.
> I believe that this patch should be changed to reflect that. The
> identifiers used in this patch are still valid, but deprecated.
Kernel-wise I do not think we can be assume that changes such as these
could be implemented right away so there is no need to change the doc
at this stage.
For now the kernel doc is the reference and nothing else. So this
patch should NOT be changed IMHO at least not now.
Eventually this could happen in the future, but not out of order with
actual patches to update the code and tooling and certainly not now.
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-04 20:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-28 15:27 [patch V5 00/11] LICENSES: Add documentation and initial License files Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 22:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-29 13:21 ` Philippe Ombredanne
2017-12-29 16:19 ` Joe Perches
2017-12-29 18:54 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-12-29 22:17 ` Philippe Ombredanne
2017-12-30 4:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2018-01-02 2:35 ` Andreas Dilger
2017-12-30 11:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-06-12 19:03 ` Yang Li
2018-06-12 19:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-06-15 16:55 ` Yang Li
2018-01-02 20:24 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-29 13:24 ` Philippe Ombredanne
2018-01-04 16:25 ` Carmen Bianca Bakker
2018-01-04 20:50 ` Philippe Ombredanne [this message]
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 03/11] LICENSES: Add the LGPL " Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 04/11] LICENSES: Add the LGPL-2.1 license Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 05/11] LICENSES: Add the BSD 2-clause "Simplified" license Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 06/11] LICENSES: Add the BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 07/11] LICENSES: Add the BSD-3-clause "Clear" license Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 08/11] LICENSES: Add the MIT license Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 09/11] LICENSES: Add Linux syscall note exception Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 10/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 1.0 license Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-28 15:27 ` [patch V5 11/11] LICENSES: Add MPL-1.1 license Thomas Gleixner
2017-12-29 13:42 ` [patch V5 00/11] LICENSES: Add documentation and initial License files Philippe Ombredanne
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='CAOFm3uHr8Vi5dG054qzPmvkD1=urZy+u2pr0sRruBBXgRunkeA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pombredanne@nexb.com \
--cc=akpm@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=carmenbianca@fsfe.org \
--cc=charlemagnelasse@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=jonas@fsfe.org \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=rob.herring@linaro.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linuxfoundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).