Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Message-ID: <b965d53c-2c01-832c-736c-f7db8d4217cd@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:49:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: SPDX: Appletalk FW license in the kernel
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dave Miller <davem@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>, jschlst@samba.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
References: <6100798b-ab1d-262a-fd5b-435d6dfc4a53@redhat.com>
 <ZRKJa+cMsFxiizKb@infradead.org> <2023092606-fiction-finlike-97a5@gregkh>
From:   Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <2023092606-fiction-finlike-97a5@gregkh>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/26/23 04:02, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:34:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 09:39:05AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>> To be clear, I am not asking for their removal, however, I do think a better
>>> license should be issued for these files.  The files were trivially modified
>>> in 2006. It could be that the code in question is now unused and it is just
>>> easier to remove them.
>>>
>>> Is there anyone you know of that we could approach to determine a proper
>>> SPDX License for these files?
>>
>> The code contains firmware that is downloaded to the device.  The proper
>> thing would be to convert them to separate binary files in the
>> linux-firmware packages.  But given that the driver has seen nothing
>> but tree wide cleanups since the dawn of git I suspect there is no
>> maintainer and probably no user left.  The best might be to indeed just
>> remove it and see if anyone screams, in which case we could bring it
>> back after doing the above.
>>
> 
> We should just remove them for now, I have no objection to that at all.
> 
> Want me to send the patch?

Yes, that would be appreciated.  Thanks :)

P.

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>