public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] SPDX License text updates
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:44:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180122194427.26B5324002F@gemini.denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180122170607.GL32220@bill-the-cat>

Dear Tom,

In message <20180122170607.GL32220@bill-the-cat> you wrote:
> 
> In another thread Felix Brack brought up that as of version 3.0 of SPDX,
> there's a number of deprecated tags (see https://spdx.org/licenses/) and
> that we're using at least one of them.
> 
> Specifically, "GPL-2.0+" should be "GPL-2.0-or-later".

OK...

> Now, we have a few options here:
> - Deprecated isn't removed.  SPDX specifically says the old links shall
>   remain valid, etc, etc.  We could continue to use "GPL-2.0+", etc and
>   not have to change (literally) 8000 files.  This will also keep us in
>   line with what the Linux kernel currently does.  I also have no idea,
>   nor have I looked to see if that's going to change.
> - Allow both old and new.  Both are valid, the newer form allows for
>   easier tooling and more precise management of options that I'm not
>   sure apply to our use cases.

Both sound not really attractive to me.

> - Switch to the new tags.  A few hour I imagine of playing around with
>   sed and then manual fixups and I can probably convert all the existing

Umm... where do you expect problems?  Running for example

	fgrep -hR GPL-2.0+ * | sort -u | less

gives a realtively short list which looks harmless to me.

>   cases to the new syntax (we have some DTS files for example with
>   (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) which would become (GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT).  But

Yes, and why do you think this would be a problem?

We have a few other places that don't match current SPDX
spcification, like all these

	GPL-2.0+        BSD-2-Clause
	GPL-2.0+        BSD-3-Clause
	GPL-2.0+ or X11
	GPL-2.0+        X11
	|____GPL-2.0+

but these cases are few and easy to spot.  I currentlse see neither
the need for "few hour of playing around with sed" nor the need for
manual fxes - a plain string substitution should work just fine, and
we could even clean up the other inconsistencies whil we are at it.

I vote for 3 plus additional cleanup.


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must  be
sane  to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
                                                       - Nikola Tesla

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-22 19:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-22 17:06 [U-Boot] [RFC] SPDX License text updates Tom Rini
2018-01-22 19:44 ` Wolfgang Denk [this message]
2018-01-22 20:11   ` Tom Rini
2018-01-22 21:33 ` Lukasz Majewski

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=20180122194427.26B5324002F@gemini.denx.de \
    --to=wd@denx.de \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /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