Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230607053940.39078-10-bagasdotme@gmail.com> <20230607053940.39078-11-bagasdotme@gmail.com>
 <CAC1cPGxD6xOLksyMHCcreFyEv5Yoo50LY=xM9BmOEP=oECoNww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC1cPGxD6xOLksyMHCcreFyEv5Yoo50LY=xM9BmOEP=oECoNww@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 10:37:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXGnzphm5Wyz7RfZdWVxPnEihR0NGy5mFs4neQM+7EfEGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] crypto: Convert dual BSD 3-Clause/GPL 2.0 boilerplate
 to SPDX identifier
To:     Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
Cc:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Franziska Naepelt <franziska.naepelt@googlemail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux SPDX Licenses <linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Janitors <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
        Alexander Kjeldaas <astor@fast.no>,
        Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr@hvrlab.org>,
        Kyle McMartin <kyle@debian.org>,
        "Adam J . Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>,
        Dr Brian Gladman <brg@gladman.me.uk>,
        Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 16:38, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 1:42=E2=80=AFAM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> >
> > Replace license boilerplate for dual BSD-3-Clause/GPL 2.0 (only or
> > later) with corresponding SPDX license identifier.
>
> This is at least the fourth or fifth time (I'm losing track) where you
> have incorrectly assumed a particular non-GPL license text matches a
> particular SPDX identifier without (apparently) checking.
>

What exactly does 'checking' entail here? There is no guidance in
Documentation/process/license-rules.rst on how to perform this
comparison.

Also, checkpatch now complains about missing SPDX identifiers, which
is what triggered this effort. Should it stop doing that?

> Bagas, I urge that you learn more about the nature of SPDX identifiers
> before submitting any further patches at least involving replacement
> of non-GPL notices with SPDX identifiers. For this unprecedented
> license notice replacement initiative to have any legitimacy it must
> attempt to apply SPDX identifiers correctly.
>

Since we're in language pedantic mode: it must do more than attempt,
it must apply them correctly, period.

Arguably, this is an 'attempt to apply SPDX identifiers correctly' on
Bagas's part, which apparently falls short (and I may be guilty of the
same for some arch crypto code)

So what is the ambition here: do we just leave the ambiguous ones as-is?