SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
related drivers.
Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
---
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c | 5 +----
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h | 5 +----
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c | 5 +----
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c | 5 +----
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h | 5 +----
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c | 5 +----
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h | 5 +----
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c | 5 +----
drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h | 5 +----
9 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
index 522cdfdd3345..2e5daf7dba1a 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video DMA
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#include <linux/dma/xilinx_dma.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h
index e95d136c153a..5aec4d17eb21 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video DMA
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#ifndef __XILINX_VIP_DMA_H__
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c
index 9c49d1d10bee..20a68a65602b 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Test Pattern Generator
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#include <linux/device.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c
index 311259129504..5f7efa9f093e 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video IP Core
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#include <linux/clk.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h
index 42fee2026815..ba939dd52818 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video IP Core
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#ifndef __XILINX_VIP_H__
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c
index d881cf09876d..cb9ab2c15952 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video IP Composite Device
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#include <linux/list.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h
index faf6b6e80b3b..39daa030679e 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video IP Composite Device
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#ifndef __XILINX_VIPP_H__
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c
index 01c750edcac5..0ae0208d7529 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video Timing Controller
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#include <linux/clk.h>
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h
index e1bb2cfcf428..90cf44245283 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video Timing Controller
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#ifndef __XILINX_VTC_H__
--
2.11.0
Hi Dhaval,
Thank you for the patch.
On Friday, 8 December 2017 14:35:37 EET Dhaval Shah wrote:
> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> related drivers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c | 5 +----
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h | 5 +----
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c | 5 +----
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c | 5 +----
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h | 5 +----
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c | 5 +----
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h | 5 +----
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c | 5 +----
> drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h | 5 +----
How about addressing drivers/media/platform/xilinx/Makefile, drivers/media/
platform/xilinx/Kconfig and include/dt-bindings/media/xilinx-vip.h as well ?
If you're fine with that I can make the change when applying, there's no need
to resubmit the patch.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Hi Laurent Pinchart,
Thanks a lot for the review.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Laurent Pinchart
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Dhaval,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Friday, 8 December 2017 14:35:37 EET Dhaval Shah wrote:
> > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > related drivers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c | 5 +----
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.h | 5 +----
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-tpg.c | 5 +----
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.c | 5 +----
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vip.h | 5 +----
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.c | 5 +----
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vipp.h | 5 +----
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.c | 5 +----
> > drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-vtc.h | 5 +----
>
> How about addressing drivers/media/platform/xilinx/Makefile, drivers/media/
> platform/xilinx/Kconfig and include/dt-bindings/media/xilinx-vip.h as well ?
> If you're fine with that I can make the change when applying, there's no need
> to resubmit the patch.
Sorry, I forgot to update in those files. Thanks for that. I am fine
with what you said. Please do that change as you said.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>
Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530
Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> escreveu:
> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> related drivers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
Hi Dhaval,
You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
touching at the driver's license tags.
Sorry,
Mauro
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 15:05 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530
> Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> escreveu:
>
> > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > related drivers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
>
> Hi Dhaval,
>
> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
> without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> touching at the driver's license tags.
And even a maintainer may not have the sole right
to modify a license.
Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:26:27 -0800
Joe Perches <[email protected]> escreveu:
> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 15:05 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530
> > Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> escreveu:
> >
> > > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > > related drivers.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> >
> > Hi Dhaval,
> >
> > You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
> > without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> > touching at the driver's license tags.
>
> And even a maintainer may not have the sole right
> to modify a license.
Very true. I was actually expecting a patch like that either authored
or explicitly sanctioned by either one of those developers:
Hyun Kwon <[email protected]> (supporter:XILINX VIDEO IP CORES)
Michal Simek <[email protected]> (supporter:ARM/ZYNQ ARCHITECTURE)
As they own an @xilinx.com, we could assume that an email from
their corporate accounts to be official.
Thanks,
Mauro
Hi Mauro,
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > related drivers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
>
> Hi Dhaval,
>
> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
> without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> touching at the driver's license tags.
The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause any
issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of any of the
10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the last kernel
release.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > > SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > > related drivers.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> >
> > Hi Dhaval,
> >
> > You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid that,
> > without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> > touching at the driver's license tags.
>
> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause any
> issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of any of the
> 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the last kernel
> release.
Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
explicit license is different than removing the license
text itself.
Hi Joe,
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>> related drivers.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Hi Dhaval,
> >>
> >> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid
> >> that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a patch
> >> touching at the driver's license tags.
> >
> > The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause any
> > issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of any of
> > the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the last
> > kernel release.
>
> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> explicit license is different than removing the license
> text itself.
The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text. The
only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel in one go
was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks. This is no different
than not including the full GPL license in every header file but only pointing
to it through its name and reference, as every kernel source file does.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Joe,
Hi Laurent.
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> > explicit license is different than removing the license
> > text itself.
>
> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.
I understand that.
At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
as that license states:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
etc...
> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel in one go
> was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.
Not really, it was scripted.
> This is no different
> than not including the full GPL license in every header file but only pointing
> to it through its name and reference, as every kernel source file does.
Not every kernel source file had a license text
or a reference to another license file.
Hi Joe,
(CC'ing Greg and adding context for easier understanding)
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>>
> >>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid
> >>>> that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a
> >>>> patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>>
> >>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> >>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of
> >>> any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the
> >>> last kernel release.
> >>
> >> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> >> explicit license is different than removing the license
> >> text itself.
> >
> > The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.
>
> I understand that.
> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> as that license states:
>
> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> etc...
But this patch only removes the following text:
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> > The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel in
> > one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.
>
> Not really, it was scripted.
But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> > This is no different than not including the full GPL license in every
> > header file but only pointing to it through its name and reference, as
> > every kernel source file does.
>
> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> or a reference to another license file.
Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon at
the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment on this ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> (CC'ing Greg and adding context for easier understanding)
>
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > >>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > >>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > >>>>> related drivers.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Dhaval,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid
> > >>>> that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a
> > >>>> patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> > >>>
> > >>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> > >>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of
> > >>> any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the
> > >>> last kernel release.
> > >> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> > >> explicit license is different than removing the license
> > >> text itself.
> > >
> > > The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.
> >
> > I understand that.
> > At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> > as that license states:
> >
> > * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > etc...
>
> But this patch only removes the following text:
>
> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>
> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>
> > > The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel in
> > > one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.
> >
> > Not really, it was scripted.
>
> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>
> > > This is no different than not including the full GPL license in every
> > > header file but only pointing to it through its name and reference, as
> > > every kernel source file does.
> >
> > Not every kernel source file had a license text
> > or a reference to another license file.
>
> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>
> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon at
> the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment on this ?
Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
summarize it?
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> >>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> >>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't
> >>>>>> accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> >>>>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder
> >>>>> of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in
> >>>>> the last kernel release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> >>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
> >>>> text itself.
> >>>
> >>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.
> >>
> >> I understand that.
> >> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> >>
> >> as that license states:
> >> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >>
> >> etc...
> >
> > But this patch only removes the following text:
> >
> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >
> > and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> >
> >>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel
> >>> in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.
> >>
> >> Not really, it was scripted.
> >
> > But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> >
> >>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in every
> >>> header file but only pointing to it through its name and reference, as
> >>> every kernel source file does.
> >>
> >> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> >> or a reference to another license file.
> >
> > Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> >
> > This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon
> > at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment
> > on this ?
>
> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
> summarize it?
In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted https://
patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
[...]
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver (drivers/media/platform/
xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an explicit ack
from the official driver's maintainers. My position is that such a change
doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to track all copyright
holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack from the respective
maintainers.
On a side note, Joe pointed out that some files contains BSD license text
similar to
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
If we follow the text of the license strictly it can be argued that such text
can't be replaced by an SPDX license identifier without breaching the license.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > >>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > >>>>>>> related drivers.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> > >>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't
> > >>>>>> accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> > >>>>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder
> > >>>>> of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in
> > >>>>> the last kernel release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> > >>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
> > >>>> text itself.
> > >>>
> > >>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.
> > >>
> > >> I understand that.
> > >> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> > >>
> > >> as that license states:
> > >> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > >> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > >>
> > >> etc...
> > >
> > > But this patch only removes the following text:
> > >
> > > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > > - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >
> > > and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> > >
> > >>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel
> > >>> in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.
> > >>
> > >> Not really, it was scripted.
> > >
> > > But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> > >
> > >>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in every
> > >>> header file but only pointing to it through its name and reference, as
> > >>> every kernel source file does.
> > >>
> > >> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> > >> or a reference to another license file.
> > >
> > > Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> > >
> > > This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon
> > > at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment
> > > on this ?
> >
> > Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
> > summarize it?
>
> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted https://
> patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> [...]
> - *
> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>
> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver (drivers/media/platform/
> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an explicit ack
> from the official driver's maintainers. My position is that such a change
> doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to track all copyright
> holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack from the respective
> maintainers.
Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
copyright is either.
BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
as being acceptable.
So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least
give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
> On a side note, Joe pointed out that some files contains BSD license text
> similar to
>
> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> If we follow the text of the license strictly it can be argued that such text
> can't be replaced by an SPDX license identifier without breaching the license.
That's not really true, see Thomas's patch series that adds the BSD
license to the kernel source tree in a way that preserves the license
text and legality of it all. It follows the agreed-apon process
documented in the REUSE Inititive which is driven by the FSFE:
https://reuse.software/
Once Thomas's series is merged, and we've cleaned up all of the GPL
boilerplate text, then we can start to worry about the BSD license mess :)
Does this help?
greg k-h
Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100
Greg KH <[email protected]> escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > > >>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > > >>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > > >>>>>>> related drivers.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> > > >>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't
> > > >>>>>> accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> > > >>>>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder
> > > >>>>> of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in
> > > >>>>> the last kernel release.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> > > >>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
> > > >>>> text itself.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.
> > > >>
> > > >> I understand that.
> > > >> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> > > >>
> > > >> as that license states:
> > > >> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > > >> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > > >>
> > > >> etc...
> > > >
> > > > But this patch only removes the following text:
> > > >
> > > > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > > > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > > > - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > > >
> > > > and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> > > >
> > > >>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel
> > > >>> in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not really, it was scripted.
> > > >
> > > > But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > >>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in every
> > > >>> header file but only pointing to it through its name and reference, as
> > > >>> every kernel source file does.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> > > >> or a reference to another license file.
> > > >
> > > > Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> > > >
> > > > This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon
> > > > at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment
> > > > on this ?
> > >
> > > Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
> > > summarize it?
> >
> > In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted https://
> > patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> >
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > [...]
> > - *
> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >
> > in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver (drivers/media/platform/
> > xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> > stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an explicit ack
> > from the official driver's maintainers. My position is that such a change
> > doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to track all copyright
> > holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack from the respective
> > maintainers.
>
> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> copyright is either.
>
> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> as being acceptable.
>
> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least
> give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
Thanks,
Mauro
Hi Mauro,
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> >>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
> >>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
> >>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
> >>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
> >>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> >>>>>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
> >>>>>>> text itself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license
> >>>>>> text.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I understand that.
> >>>>> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> >>>>>
> >>>>> as that license states:
> >>>>> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >>>>> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> etc...
> >>>>
> >>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
> >>>>
> >>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >>>> modify
> >>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>>>
> >>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole
> >>>>>> kernel in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple
> >>>>>> chunks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not really, it was scripted.
> >>>>
> >>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in
> >>>>>> every header file but only pointing to it through its name and
> >>>>>> reference, as every kernel source file does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> >>>>> or a reference to another license file.
> >>>>
> >>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> >>>>
> >>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
> >>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
> >>>> could you comment on this ?
> >>>
> >>> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
> >>> summarize it?
> >>
> >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> >>
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> [...]
> >> - *
> >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>
> >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> >> (drivers/media/platform/
> >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
> >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
> >> from the respective maintainers.
> >
> > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> > copyright is either.
> >
> > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> > now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> > as being acceptable.
> >
> > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least
> > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>
> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>
> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
correct ? That is reasonable for me.
In that case, could the fact that commit
commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
blanket approval ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>> >>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
>> >>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
>> >>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
>> >>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
>> >>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
>> >>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
>> >>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
>> >>>>>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
>> >>>>>>> text itself.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license
>> >>>>>> text.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I understand that.
>> >>>>> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> as that license states:
>> >>>>> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> >>>>> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> etc...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> >>>> modify
>> >>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> >>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole
>> >>>>>> kernel in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple
>> >>>>>> chunks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Not really, it was scripted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in
>> >>>>>> every header file but only pointing to it through its name and
>> >>>>>> reference, as every kernel source file does.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Not every kernel source file had a license text
>> >>>>> or a reference to another license file.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
>> >>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
>> >>>> could you comment on this ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
>> >>> summarize it?
>> >>
>> >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
>> >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>> >>
>> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> >> [...]
>> >> - *
>> >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> >> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> >> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> >>
>> >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
>> >> (drivers/media/platform/
>> >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
>> >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
>> >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
>> >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
>> >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
>> >> from the respective maintainers.
>> >
>> > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
>> > copyright is either.
>> >
>> > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
>> > now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
>> > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
>> > as being acceptable.
>> >
>> > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
>> > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least
>> > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
>> > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
>> > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
>> > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>>
>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>
>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>
> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
> approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
> correct ? That is reasonable for me.
>
> In that case, could the fact that commit
>
> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>
> USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>
> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
> blanket approval ?
>
I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
Simek([email protected]) and [email protected] ACK this patch
then it will go into mainline?
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>
Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530
Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> escreveu:
> Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >> >>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >> >>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> >> >>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
> >> >>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
> >> >>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
> >> >>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
> >> >>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> >> >>>>>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
> >> >>>>>>> text itself.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license
> >> >>>>>> text.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I understand that.
> >> >>>>> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> as that license states:
> >> >>>>> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >> >>>>> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> etc...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >> >>>> modify
> >> >>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >> >>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole
> >> >>>>>> kernel in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple
> >> >>>>>> chunks.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Not really, it was scripted.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in
> >> >>>>>> every header file but only pointing to it through its name and
> >> >>>>>> reference, as every kernel source file does.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> >> >>>>> or a reference to another license file.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
> >> >>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
> >> >>>> could you comment on this ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
> >> >>> summarize it?
> >> >>
> >> >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> >> >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> >> >>
> >> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> - *
> >> >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >> >> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >> >> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >> >>
> >> >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> >> >> (drivers/media/platform/
> >> >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> >> >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> >> >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> >> >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
> >> >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
> >> >> from the respective maintainers.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> >> > copyright is either.
> >> >
> >> > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> >> > now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> >> > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> >> > as being acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> >> > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least
> >> > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> >> > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> >> > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> >> > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
> >>
> >> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
> >>
> >> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> >> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> >> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
> >
> > If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
> > approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
> > approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
> > correct ? That is reasonable for me.
> >
> > In that case, could the fact that commit
> >
> > commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> > Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> > Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
> >
> > USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
> >
> > add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
> > blanket approval ?
> >
> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
> Simek([email protected]) and [email protected] ACK this patch
> then it will go into mainline?
I would wait for their feedback.
Thanks,
Mauro
Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:02:21 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]> escreveu:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> > >>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> > >>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> > >>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
> > >>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
> > >>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
> > >>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
> > >>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> > >>>>>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
> > >>>>>>> text itself.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license
> > >>>>>> text.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I understand that.
> > >>>>> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> as that license states:
> > >>>>> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > >>>>> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> etc...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > >>>> modify
> > >>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > >>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole
> > >>>>>> kernel in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple
> > >>>>>> chunks.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Not really, it was scripted.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in
> > >>>>>> every header file but only pointing to it through its name and
> > >>>>>> reference, as every kernel source file does.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> > >>>>> or a reference to another license file.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
> > >>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
> > >>>> could you comment on this ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
> > >>> summarize it?
> > >>
> > >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> > >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> > >>
> > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > >> [...]
> > >> - *
> > >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > >> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > >> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >>
> > >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> > >> (drivers/media/platform/
> > >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> > >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> > >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> > >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
> > >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
> > >> from the respective maintainers.
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> > > copyright is either.
> > >
> > > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> > > now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> > > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> > > as being acceptable.
> > >
> > > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> > > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least
> > > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> > > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> > > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> > > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
> >
> > Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
> >
> > I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> > without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> > to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>
> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
> approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
> correct ? That is reasonable for me.
I doubt any Company's legal department would give a blanket approval for
others to touch on their licensing text.
>
> In that case, could the fact that commit
>
> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>
> USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>
> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
> blanket approval ?
If you look at this patch's summary:
651 files changed, 651 insertions(+)
And on the patch contents itself, it is just adding a SPDX header.
It doesn't remove any text from the license.
On Dhaval's patch, it is not only adding SPDX header. It is also removing
the legal text from it:
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
index 522cdfdd3345..2e5daf7dba1a 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Xilinx Video DMA
*
@@ -6,10 +7,6 @@
*
* Contacts: Hyun Kwon <[email protected]>
* Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
And that's the part I'm more concerned about: we should give Xilinx
enough time to review and approve such change.
Thanks,
Mauro
Hi guys,
On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530
> Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> escreveu:
>
>> Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Mauro,
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
>>>>>>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
>>>>>>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
>>>>>>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
>>>>>>>>>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
>>>>>>>>>>> text itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license
>>>>>>>>>> text.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand that.
>>>>>>>>> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as that license states:
>>>>>>>>> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>>>>>>>>> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> etc...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>>>>>>> modify
>>>>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>>>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole
>>>>>>>>>> kernel in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple
>>>>>>>>>> chunks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really, it was scripted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in
>>>>>>>>>> every header file but only pointing to it through its name and
>>>>>>>>>> reference, as every kernel source file does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not every kernel source file had a license text
>>>>>>>>> or a reference to another license file.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
>>>>>>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
>>>>>>>> could you comment on this ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
>>>>>>> summarize it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
>>>>>> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> - *
>>>>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
>>>>>> (drivers/media/platform/
>>>>>> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
>>>>>> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
>>>>>> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
>>>>>> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
>>>>>> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
>>>>>> from the respective maintainers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
>>>>> copyright is either.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
>>>>> now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
>>>>> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
>>>>> as being acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
>>>>> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least
>>>>> give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
>>>>> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
>>>>> speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
>>>>> with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>>>
>>>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
>>>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
>>>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>>>
>>> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
>>> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
>>> approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
>>> correct ? That is reasonable for me.
>>>
>>> In that case, could the fact that commit
>>>
>>> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
>>> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>>>
>>> USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>>>
>>> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
>>> blanket approval ?
>>>
>> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
>> Simek([email protected]) and [email protected] ACK this patch
>> then it will go into mainline?
>
> I would wait for their feedback.
Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have
already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago.
Thanks,
Michal
Hi Michal,
On Monday, 18 December 2017 09:32:12 EET Michal Simek wrote:
> On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chehab wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> copyright holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX license header in the last kernel release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> >>>>>>>>>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
> >>>>>>>>>>> text itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license
> >>>>>>>>>> text.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I understand that.
> >>>>>>>>> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> as that license states:
> >>>>>>>>> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above
> >>>>>>>>> copyright
> >>>>>>>>> * notice, this list of conditions and the following
> >>>>>>>>> disclaimer.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> etc...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >>>>>>>> modify
> >>>>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole
> >>>>>>>>>> kernel in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple
> >>>>>>>>>> chunks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not really, it was scripted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in
> >>>>>>>>>> every header file but only pointing to it through its name and
> >>>>>>>>>> reference, as every kernel source file does.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> >>>>>>>>> or a reference to another license file.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
> >>>>>>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
> >>>>>>>> could you comment on this ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care
> >>>>>>> to summarize it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> >>>>>> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>> - *
> >>>>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >>>>>> modify
> >>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >>>>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> >>>>>> (drivers/media/platform/
> >>>>>> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected
> >>>>>> it, stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> >>>>>> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> >>>>>> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need
> >>>>>> to track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit
> >>>>>> ack from the respective maintainers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> >>>>> copyright is either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> >>>>> now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> >>>>> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> >>>>> as being acceptable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> >>>>> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at
> >>>>> least give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> >>>>> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good
> >>>>> to speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in
> >>>>> contact with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> >>>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> >>>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
> >>>
> >>> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
> >>> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a
> >>> blanket approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar
> >>> patches. Is that correct ? That is reasonable for me.
> >>>
> >>> In that case, could the fact that commit
> >>>
> >>> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> >>> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> >>> Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
> >>>
> >>> USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
> >>>
> >>> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such
> >>> a blanket approval ?
> >>
> >> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
> >> Simek([email protected]) and [email protected] ACK this patch
> >> then it will go into mainline?
> >
> > I would wait for their feedback.
>
> Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have
> already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago.
Could you ask them to approve this kind of change globally for all Xilinx
sources files (or reject it globally if they want to do so) ? I don't want to
go through the same hassle for every single driver.
On a side note, SPDX headers have been added to several Xilinx-owned files
already, you can use that information in your internal discussions if it
helps.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Hi Laurent,
On 18.12.2017 09:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On Monday, 18 December 2017 09:32:12 EET Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>>>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chehab wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copyright holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX license header in the last kernel release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
>>>>>>>>>>>>> text itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license
>>>>>>>>>>>> text.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> as that license states:
>>>>>>>>>>> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above
>>>>>>>>>>> copyright
>>>>>>>>>>> * notice, this list of conditions and the following
>>>>>>>>>>> disclaimer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> etc...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>>>>>>>>> modify
>>>>>>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole
>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>> chunks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not really, it was scripted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in
>>>>>>>>>>>> every header file but only pointing to it through its name and
>>>>>>>>>>>> reference, as every kernel source file does.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not every kernel source file had a license text
>>>>>>>>>>> or a reference to another license file.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
>>>>>>>>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
>>>>>>>>>> could you comment on this ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care
>>>>>>>>> to summarize it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
>>>>>>>> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> - *
>>>>>>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>>>>>>> modify
>>>>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>>>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
>>>>>>>> (drivers/media/platform/
>>>>>>>> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected
>>>>>>>> it, stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
>>>>>>>> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
>>>>>>>> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need
>>>>>>>> to track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit
>>>>>>>> ack from the respective maintainers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
>>>>>>> copyright is either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
>>>>>>> now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
>>>>>>> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
>>>>>>> as being acceptable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
>>>>>>> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at
>>>>>>> least give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
>>>>>>> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good
>>>>>>> to speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in
>>>>>>> contact with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
>>>>>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
>>>>>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
>>>>> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a
>>>>> blanket approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar
>>>>> patches. Is that correct ? That is reasonable for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, could the fact that commit
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
>>>>> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>>>>> Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>>>>>
>>>>> USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>>>>>
>>>>> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such
>>>>> a blanket approval ?
>>>>
>>>> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
>>>> Simek([email protected]) and [email protected] ACK this patch
>>>> then it will go into mainline?
>>>
>>> I would wait for their feedback.
>>
>> Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have
>> already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago.
>
> Could you ask them to approve this kind of change globally for all Xilinx
> sources files (or reject it globally if they want to do so) ? I don't want to
> go through the same hassle for every single driver.
>
> On a side note, SPDX headers have been added to several Xilinx-owned files
> already, you can use that information in your internal discussions if it
> helps.
As was said in this thread. One thing is if you simply add that one line
or if you add and remove. We are waiting for response from Legal to know
their opinion.
Anyway Xilinx is using SPDX license header in U-Boot project for years
already. This change started there in 2013 and I have never heard about
any problem connected to this.
>From my point of view it is good that this process finally started.
I have touched it in past here
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/21/21
and I hope that there won't be any problem with this but let's see.
Thanks,
Michal
Hi Mauro,
On 18.12.2017 08:32, Michal Simek wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530
>> Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> escreveu:
>>
>>> Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Mauro,
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>>> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dhaval,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't accept a patch touching at the driver's license tags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright
>>>>>>>>>>>>> holder of any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license
>>>>>>>>>>>>> header in the last kernel release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
>>>>>>>>>>>> explicit license is different than removing the license
>>>>>>>>>>>> text itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license
>>>>>>>>>>> text.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I understand that.
>>>>>>>>>> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as that license states:
>>>>>>>>>> * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>>>>>>>>>> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> etc...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But this patch only removes the following text:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>>>>>>>> modify
>>>>>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>>>>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole
>>>>>>>>>>> kernel in one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple
>>>>>>>>>>> chunks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not really, it was scripted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But still manually reviewed as far as I know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is no different than not including the full GPL license in
>>>>>>>>>>> every header file but only pointing to it through its name and
>>>>>>>>>>> reference, as every kernel source file does.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not every kernel source file had a license text
>>>>>>>>>> or a reference to another license file.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be
>>>>>>>>> decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg,
>>>>>>>>> could you comment on this ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to
>>>>>>>> summarize it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
>>>>>>> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> - *
>>>>>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>>>> - * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
>>>>>>> (drivers/media/platform/
>>>>>>> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
>>>>>>> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
>>>>>>> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
>>>>>>> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
>>>>>>> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
>>>>>>> from the respective maintainers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
>>>>>> copyright is either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
>>>>>> now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
>>>>>> developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
>>>>>> as being acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
>>>>>> guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least
>>>>>> give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
>>>>>> throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
>>>>>> speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
>>>>>> with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
>>>>> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
>>>>> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
>>>> approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
>>>> approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
>>>> correct ? That is reasonable for me.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, could the fact that commit
>>>>
>>>> commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
>>>> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>>>> Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
>>>>
>>>> USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
>>>>
>>>> add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
>>>> blanket approval ?
>>>>
>>> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
>>> Simek([email protected]) and [email protected] ACK this patch
>>> then it will go into mainline?
>>
>> I would wait for their feedback.
>
> Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have
> already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago.
There is no concern from xilinx legal about this change that's why
Acked-by: Michal Simek <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Michal