Re: meson.build files are missing copyright/license headers

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 24/08/2020 20.46, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 19:29, Marc-André Lureau
> <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 1:44 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>   It looks like the new meson.build files are missing the usual
>>> copyright-and-license header comment. Could somebody add them,
>>> please?
>>>
>>> scripts/ninjatool.py does have a copyright line but is missing
>>> the license statement.
>>>
>>
>> Afaik, most makefiles didn't have any, so it falls under the default GPL2+ LICENSE rule.
> 
> Yep, but the rule is that new files should have them, even if
> old files didn't always.
> 
>> If it's a matter of prepending
>>
>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>>
>> On each meson.build file, I can prepare a patch.
> 
> Everything needs at least a copyright line (in this case, judging
> by existing files in the tree it will probably be something like
> "Copyright (c) 2020 Red Hat, Inc." but check with your legal
> department what they like ;-)), plus a statement that clearly
> defines the license the code is under. We don't mandate SPDX[*],
> but it will do the job if you want to use it.
> 
> [*] Mostly because nobody's cared enough to say "we should
> standardize on this and convert existing files and add the
> check to checkpatch that new files have an SPDX line".

We should standardize on this and convert existing files and add the
check to checkpatch that new files have an SPDX line! :-)

Ok, now sombody said it loud. Would there be any objections to enforce 
this via checkpatch on new files?

  Thomas