From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751189AbdKOIpo (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:45:44 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:39878 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751617AbdKOIpk (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:45:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:45:41 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Martin Kepplinger Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] samples: replace FSF address with web source in license notices Message-ID: <20171115084541.GA23833@kroah.com> References: <20171114095037.28563-1-martink@posteo.de> <20171115062955.GA16601@kroah.com> <19e33c22c64218d4fca53871f3408871@posteo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19e33c22c64218d4fca53871f3408871@posteo.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 08:46:51AM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote: > Am 15.11.2017 07:29 schrieb Greg KH: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:50:37AM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote: > > > A few years ago the FSF moved and "59 Temple Place" is wrong. Having > > > this > > > still in our source files feels old and unmaintained. > > > > > > Let's take the license statement serious and not confuse users. > > > > > > As https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html suggests, we replace > > > the > > > postal address with "" in the samples > > > directory. > > > > What would be best is to just put the SPDX single line at the top of the > > files, and then remove this license "boilerplate" entirely. I've > > started to do that with some subsystems already (drivers/usb/ and > > drivers/tty/ are almost finished, see Linus's tree for details), and > > I've sent out a patch series for drivers/s390/ yesterday if you want to > > see an example of how to do it. > > > > Could you do that here instead of this patch as well? > > > > Is there consensus about this? I'm not a layer, but is this clear enough for > useres? And what holds against only adding the new SPDX tag line at the top? What do you mean by "adding a new" line? That would change the license of the file, so don't do that :) And yes, a single SPDX line in the file is determined to be a valid legal mark of the license of the file according to all of the lawyers I have been working with from lots of different companies. See the last s390 patch series for one such example of that. > Other than I don't like mixing // and /**/ comments, it indeed looks > quite clean. Is there consensus about the syntax too? See the patch series from Thomas on lkml for the syntax format, the "consensus" was driven by Linus :) thanks, greg k-h