Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and
GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and
GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the
identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file.
Add them to make everything consistent again.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
---
LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
--- a/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
+++ b/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html
Usage-Guide:
To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX
@@ -7,8 +9,12 @@ SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-
guidelines in the licensing rules documentation.
For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+ or
+ SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+ or
+ SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
License-Text:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and
> GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and
> GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the
> identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file.
>
> Add them to make everything consistent again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
As much as I dislike the "new" identifiers, I guess trying to hold them
back is a pointless exercise :(
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
On 23/04/18 08:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and
>> GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and
>> GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the
>> identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file.
>>
>> Add them to make everything consistent again.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
>
> As much as I dislike the "new" identifiers, I guess trying to hold them
> back is a pointless exercise :(
I like the new identifiers :-)
Reviewed-by: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
Regards,
Hans
>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>
Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:52:29 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and
> > GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and
> > GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the
> > identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file.
> >
> > Add them to make everything consistent again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
>
> As much as I dislike the "new" identifiers, I guess trying to hold them
> back is a pointless exercise :(
Well, it is part of the SPDX spec, so it should be valid, no matter
of personal tastes.
I'd say that we should clearly point what SPDX version is preferred at:
Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
And, if we adopt version 3.0, change the described license tags
accordingly, as the tags showed there are for some pre-version 3.0
SPDX version (but the file doesn't mention if it follows SPDX version
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 or 2.1).
Anyway, for this specific patch:
Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Mauro
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:52:29 +0200
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> escreveu:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and
> > > GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and
> > > GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the
> > > identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file.
> > >
> > > Add them to make everything consistent again.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> >
> > As much as I dislike the "new" identifiers, I guess trying to hold them
> > back is a pointless exercise :(
>
> Well, it is part of the SPDX spec, so it should be valid, no matter
> of personal tastes.
>
> I'd say that we should clearly point what SPDX version is preferred at:
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
>
> And, if we adopt version 3.0, change the described license tags
> accordingly, as the tags showed there are for some pre-version 3.0
> SPDX version (but the file doesn't mention if it follows SPDX version
> 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 or 2.1).
We need to grab the new version anyway due to the new Linux-OpenIB
license ID.
And we can document that the new -only and -or-later versions are
preferred, but should we really patch thousands of files just to update the
IDs?
I don't think so, SPDX better get their act together and mark them as
equivalent.
Thanks,
tglx