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
next prev parent 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