Re: [PATCH 5/5] driver core: Remove redundant license text

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:26:30PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:30:09PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > Now that the SPDX tag is in all driver core files, that identifies the
> > license in a specific and legally-defined manner.
> 
> Takashi and Jiri mentioned that the effort to add SPDX tags to files which did
> not have licensing was discussed at the maintainers summit and it was agreed
> upon there that this made sense. That is wonderful.
> 
> Naturally, even despite this, some still have their own questions about this
> work [0]. And some others seem to actually have pointed out that the work might
> have some technical issues [1] likely worth considering.
> 
> [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171108151121.GC10374@infradead.org
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171108171938.7df66c65@alans-desktop
> 
> > So the extra GPL text wording can be removed 
> 
> Highlight *removed*
> 
> > as it is no longer needed at all.
> 
> This secondary however was not.

Was not what?  Discussed?  Yes it was.  I think the lwn.net article even
says so.

> But this begs the question that if there is still questions, issues pointed
> out, and request for a bit more open discussion about the *first* SPDX effort
> of adding a tag to files which have no license, if there was *any* due process
> for creating consensus for also going along with this *secondary* SPDX effort
> of license *simplification* by replacing old boiler plate license tags with an
> SPDX tag.
> 
> At least internally within SUSE I can say so far that we are surprised by these
> patches and work. We did not know, and this is the first of communication of
> such effort.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, these simplifications make perfect sense to me! But in
> dealing with licensing considerations before on Linux I've learned through
> feedback from you, Alan, and Ted and others to also be *extremely* careful and
> sensitive about licensing annotation matters, and this type of change seems to
> likely deserve a bit more community consensus than what this seems to be
> getting.
> 
> Not even an RFC. So why rush this work in?

I don't post RFCs :)

As for "rush", not really, might as well do it sometime, so I've created
a bunch of patches and merged some of them.  It's going to be a lot of
work, someone had to start it :)

Thomas is working on a document to describe this, hopefully it will be
done soon.

> > This is done on a quest to remove the 700+ different ways that files in
> > the kernel describe the GPL license text.  And there's unneeded stuff
> > like the address (sometimes incorrect) for the FSF which is never
> > needed.
> 
> Completely agreed, all this stuff is rather silly, however which tag is used,
> when, and how seems to have never been discussed and vetted anywhere to my
> knowledge.

"which" tag is just SPDX, that's easy.  As for "when and how", I don't
understand the question.

> Below I leave two examples of the patch, but leave in place the diffstat.

I don't understand, do you object to the patches?  Do you not think they
should be merged?  If so, please let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h