Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752892AbdLLPAL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:00:11 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36326 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752354AbdLLPAG (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:00:06 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E3AD021896 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=krzk@kernel.org X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotmQJ2o5ET20HwY41lsvEdBS2xianXysI+p7sFOpXMkg/vQJd41R2mWaVRE11BL+brxHUZRdZ63UlHYEJKzl4M= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20171212075815.8683-1-andi.shyti@samsung.com> <20171212130313.GC1072@brancaleone.zhora.eu>

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:00:02 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: s3c64xx: add SPDX identifier To: Philippe Ombredanne Cc: Andi Shyti , Andi Shyti , Kukjin Kim , Mark Brown , linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3735 Lines: 93 On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Andi Shyti wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>>> > - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd. >>>> > - * Jaswinder Singh >>>> > - * >>>> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >>>> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by >>>> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or >>>> > - * (at your option) any later version. >>>> > - * >>>> > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, >>>> > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >>>> > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the >>>> > - * GNU General Public License for more details. >>>> > - */ >>>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>>> >>> >>>> Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0. >>> >>> mmmhhh... isn't it deprecated from 2.0rc2? Current SPDX version >>> 2.6 doesn't have GPL-2.0+ in the list of licenses. >>> >>> https://spdx.org/licenses/ >>> >>> I can improve the commit log to state it more clearly. Would that >>> work? >> >> No. The license identifier is deprecated, not the license itself. >> Instead the, the SPDX says: <> use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate >> “or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+)>>. The spec [1] mentions it again: >> "An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary"+" operator >> suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later >> version. For example: GPL-2.0+" >> >> Existing kernel sources follow this convention. >> >>> BTW, is it really a change of license? >> >> Yes, it is. Or maybe not license itself but it terms and specific >> elements. GPL-2.0 does not say "any later option at your choice". Let >> me quote: >> "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program >> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and >> "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and >> conditions either of that version or of any later version published by >> the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a >> version number of this License, you may choose any version ever >> published by the Free Software Foundation." [2] >> >> What to add more here? GPL-2.0 only does not allow you to use any >> later version ever published by FSF. >> >>> >>>> Why changing the comment style? >>> >>> That's SPDX, right? by adding the SPDX-License-Identifier the >>> GPLv2 statement becomes redundant and we can remove some lines. >> >> But it does not explain why existing comment has to be rewritten into //. >> >> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version >> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > IMHO you should refer to Thomas doc patches instead of looking for > details elsewhere [1] > They are the authoritative doc for the kernel. I was actually checking this with existing source code (after applying these patches) and GPLv2.0+any_later was converted to "GPL-2.0+". Let's look at specific example: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/946 "+ For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use: + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+" I do not understand then whether you are agreeing or arguing with my point. :) Best regards, Krzysztof > > CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman > CC: Thomas Gleixner > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934