Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:01:22 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/9] LICENSES/GPL2.0: Add GPL-2.0-only/or-later as valid
 identifiers
In-Reply-To: <20180423071453.25deeb48@vento.lan>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804240953460.5261@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20180422220208.772527041@linutronix.de> <20180422220833.078058446@linutronix.de> <20180423065229.GD4208@kroah.com> <20180423071453.25deeb48@vento.lan>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:52:29 +0200
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and
> > > GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and
> > > GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the
> > > identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file.
> > > 
> > > Add them to make everything consistent again.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>
> > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>  
> > 
> > As much as I dislike the "new" identifiers, I guess trying to hold them
> > back is a pointless exercise :(
> 
> Well, it is part of the SPDX spec, so it should be valid, no matter
> of personal tastes.
> 
> I'd say that we should clearly point what SPDX version is preferred at:
> 	Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
> 
> And, if we adopt version 3.0, change the described license tags
> accordingly, as the tags showed there are for some pre-version 3.0
> SPDX version (but the file doesn't mention if it follows SPDX version
> 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 or 2.1).

We need to grab the new version anyway due to the new Linux-OpenIB
license ID.

And we can document that the new -only and -or-later versions are
preferred, but should we really patch thousands of files just to update the
IDs?

I don't think so, SPDX better get their act together and mark them as
equivalent.

Thanks,

	tglx