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;
Date:   Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:25:37 +0700
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] crypto - some SPDX cleanups for arch code
Message-ID: <ZIQlcc_9lyWtP0Jg@debian.me>
References: <20230606173127.4050254-1-ardb@kernel.org>
 <20230607043730.GB941@sol.localdomain>
 <20230610031248.GC872@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="drldH6IlG99tuUVB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230610031248.GC872@sol.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk


--drldH6IlG99tuUVB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 08:12:48PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Actually, given the discussion on the other thread
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230607053940.39078-10-bagasdotme@gmail.com, m=
aybe it
> would be best to hold off on this for now?  Or at least split this series=
 into
> more patches, such that each patch does only one "type" of SPDX replaceme=
nt.

Thanks for pointing to my thread! (and Cc'ing Richard of course ...)

If we continue on the conversion, I definitely agree with your latter
option (as I have done there).

>=20
> I still think these conversions are probably fine, but some points that p=
erhaps
> need an explicit explanation are:
>=20
> * Using GPL-2.0-only for files like chacha-neon-core.S whose file header =
says
>   GPL v2, but also says GPL v2 or later.

In that case, IMO, err to the safe side and assume the most restrictive
(GPL-2.0-only).

>=20
> * Replacing with SPDX on files that explicitly say "DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE
>   COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER."

Just add the SPDX tag...

>=20
> * Using BSD-3-Clause when the license text in the file header has the cop=
yright
>   holder name instead of "copyright holder", thus making it not an exact
>   word-for-word match with LICENSES/preferred/BSD-3-Clause.  (It seems th=
ere are
>   specific rules for variations that have been approved, e.g. see
>   https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/BSD-3-Clause.xml=
 and
>   https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.2.2/license-matching-guidelines-and=
-templates)

Above case is wording variation (for which we conclude that only license
boilerplate with exact wording can be replaced by the tag).

>=20
> * Using "GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause" for the two crct10dif-ce-core.S fi=
les.
>   They have an unusual file header, and it could be argued that some
>   contributions to those files were intended to be licensed under GPL-2.0=
-only.
>   FWIW, I am fine with either license for my contributions to those files.

Dunno.

Thanks.

--=20
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

--drldH6IlG99tuUVB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQSSYQ6Cy7oyFNCHrUH2uYlJVVFOowUCZIQlbgAKCRD2uYlJVVFO
o4GXAQDS2OcDpcmPm55DAxSmH9pIieibikQ3Rlw1AH5/h4COdwEAyVK7nbFoB6gw
aUBlS3fY56IKGTmFwUFWjYeNyW+cOQw=
=KWcA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--drldH6IlG99tuUVB--