From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1760420AbdKRANO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 17 Nov 2017 19:13:14 -0500
Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:49210 "EHLO ms.lwn.net"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1423455AbdKRANC (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 17 Nov 2017 19:13:02 -0500
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:13:00 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with
 SPDX identifiers
Message-ID: <20171117171300.69083b6b@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <5d5da06a-5c20-4031-9b71-9a6b6ef91cef@posteo.de>
References: <20171115084541.GA23833@kroah.com>
        <20171115204411.10292-1-martink@posteo.de>
        <20171116114110.GA5892@kroah.com>
        <20171117155353.02950038@lwn.net>
        <5d5da06a-5c20-4031-9b71-9a6b6ef91cef@posteo.de>
Organization: LWN.net
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:43:46 +0100
Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> wrote:

> But Greg, people are listening to you. Please don't give advice in
> directions that are not clearly correct for Linux. You know you could
> have simply ack'd the initial mistake-fix in that case. It wouldn't have
> hurt anybody.

Sigh, it wasn't my intent to get Greg in trouble.

Martin...  please don't blame Greg here.  What's going on (IMO) is that
you've stumbled into something that we have just now begun to figure
out.  We very much *want* to rip out all that boilerplate, but we don't
yet have a consensus on the proper way to do it.  We haven't really even
had the discussion yet.  You've just had the poor luck to wander in at
the wrong time and become part of that discussion.

I'll confess that, when I saw your first patch, it crossed my mind to
answer much like Greg did.  But Greg always gets there first :)

The files that you are touching mostly have listed copyright holders in
them.  Should you feel like putting a bit more energy into this, one
thing to do could be to copy them on a new posting of the patch and ask
for acks.  Assuming you get them, we should be able to clean up a bit of
cruft in a way that's clearly supported by the copyright holders.

Thanks,

jon