2021-12-16 12:17:41

by Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Subject: [PATCH v3] LICENSES/LGPL-2.1: Add LGPL-2.1-or-later as valid identifiers

Some files have been flagged with the new LGPL-2.1-or-later
identifier which replace the original LGPL-2.1+ in the SPDX license
identifier specification, but the identifiers are not mentioned as
valid in the LGPL-2.1 license file.

Add it, together with the LGPL-2.1-only at the the license file.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
---
LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
index 27bb4342a3e8..b73f9b6230f5 100644
--- a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
+++ b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1
+Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-only
Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
+Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1.html
Usage-Guide:
To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX
--
2.33.1

2021-12-16 12:30:22

by Cai,Huoqing

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] LICENSES/LGPL-2.1: Add LGPL-2.1-or-later as valid identifiers

On 16 12月 21 13:17:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Some files have been flagged with the new LGPL-2.1-or-later
> identifier which replace the original LGPL-2.1+ in the SPDX license
> identifier specification, but the identifiers are not mentioned as
> valid in the LGPL-2.1 license file.
>
> Add it, together with the LGPL-2.1-only at the the license file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> ---
> LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> index 27bb4342a3e8..b73f9b6230f5 100644
> --- a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
> Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1
> +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-only
> Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1.html
The URL is deprecated, do we need to update it together.
The same, GPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0
> Usage-Guide:
> To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX
> --
> 2.33.1
>

2021-12-16 13:17:50

by Greg KH

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] LICENSES/LGPL-2.1: Add LGPL-2.1-or-later as valid identifiers

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:30:14PM +0800, Cai Huoqing wrote:
> On 16 12月 21 13:17:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Some files have been flagged with the new LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > identifier which replace the original LGPL-2.1+ in the SPDX license
> > identifier specification, but the identifiers are not mentioned as
> > valid in the LGPL-2.1 license file.
> >
> > Add it, together with the LGPL-2.1-only at the the license file.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > index 27bb4342a3e8..b73f9b6230f5 100644
> > --- a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
> > Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1
> > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-only
> > Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1.html
> The URL is deprecated, do we need to update it together.

No.

> The same, GPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0

Again, no. We are using an older version of the SPDX specification,
this is fine.

thanks,

greg k-h

2021-12-16 13:28:23

by Lukas Bulwahn

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] LICENSES/LGPL-2.1: Add LGPL-2.1-or-later as valid identifiers

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:17 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:30:14PM +0800, Cai Huoqing wrote:
> > On 16 12月 21 13:17:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Some files have been flagged with the new LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > > identifier which replace the original LGPL-2.1+ in the SPDX license
> > > identifier specification, but the identifiers are not mentioned as
> > > valid in the LGPL-2.1 license file.
> > >
> > > Add it, together with the LGPL-2.1-only at the the license file.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 | 2 ++
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > > index 27bb4342a3e8..b73f9b6230f5 100644
> > > --- a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > > +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
> > > Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1
> > > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-only
> > > Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> > > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > > SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1.html
> > The URL is deprecated, do we need to update it together.
>
> No.
>
> > The same, GPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0
>
> Again, no. We are using an older version of the SPDX specification,
> this is fine.
>

Mauro's patch just makes sure that spdxcheck.py does not complain
about the SPDX License Identifiers from SPDX spec v2 and from v3. It
really does not deprecate anything or implies that everything in the
kernel needs to move to v3 (which might really be some crazy
disturbing refactoring effort without a lot of gain), but it allows
developers that want to use the tags from SPDX spec v3 can do so.

I would assume making the kernel/a tool in the kernel supporting
something more while being backwards-compatible is the standard way we
work... So, Greg, this patch is fine to be included, right?


Lukas

2021-12-16 13:30:54

by Greg KH

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] LICENSES/LGPL-2.1: Add LGPL-2.1-or-later as valid identifiers

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 02:28:10PM +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:17 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:30:14PM +0800, Cai Huoqing wrote:
> > > On 16 12月 21 13:17:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > > Some files have been flagged with the new LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > > > identifier which replace the original LGPL-2.1+ in the SPDX license
> > > > identifier specification, but the identifiers are not mentioned as
> > > > valid in the LGPL-2.1 license file.
> > > >
> > > > Add it, together with the LGPL-2.1-only at the the license file.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 | 2 ++
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > > > index 27bb4342a3e8..b73f9b6230f5 100644
> > > > --- a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > > > +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1
> > > > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
> > > > Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1
> > > > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-only
> > > > Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> > > > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > > > SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1.html
> > > The URL is deprecated, do we need to update it together.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > The same, GPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0
> >
> > Again, no. We are using an older version of the SPDX specification,
> > this is fine.
> >
>
> Mauro's patch just makes sure that spdxcheck.py does not complain
> about the SPDX License Identifiers from SPDX spec v2 and from v3. It
> really does not deprecate anything or implies that everything in the
> kernel needs to move to v3 (which might really be some crazy
> disturbing refactoring effort without a lot of gain), but it allows
> developers that want to use the tags from SPDX spec v3 can do so.
>
> I would assume making the kernel/a tool in the kernel supporting
> something more while being backwards-compatible is the standard way we
> work... So, Greg, this patch is fine to be included, right?

Yes, this patch is fine, I will queue it up in a bit, thanks!

greg k-h