On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 13:33 +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote: > According to Devicetree maintainers (see Link: below), the Devicetree > binding documents are preferrably licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR > BSD-2-Clause). > > Let's check that. The actual check is a bit more relaxed, to allow more > liberal but compatible licensing (e.g. GPL-2.0-or-later OR > BSD-2-Clause). > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200108142132.GA4830@bogus/ > Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> > --- > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > index e2976c3fe5ff8..ac93e98cddcee 100755 > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > @@ -3111,6 +3111,11 @@ sub process { > WARN("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG", > "'$spdx_license' is not supported in LICENSES/...\n" . $herecurr); > } > + if ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ && > + not $spdx_license =~ /GPL-2\.0.*BSD-2-Clause/) { > + WARN("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG", > + "DT binding documents should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)\n" . $herecurr); I think not unless the existing licenses already there are changed first. Only about 1/3 are dual licensed BSD. Do all the existing license holders agree? $ git grep -oh "SPDX.*$" Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ | \ sort | uniq -c | sort -rn 269 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 81 SPDX- License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) 69 SPDX-License- Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) 23 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only 9 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ 5 SPDX- License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11) 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0) 2 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause 2 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL- 2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause) 2 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause) 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause There would be way too many false positives given the current licensing types in existing files. Also, the link seems to show just a desire for an OR BSD for this file not a desire for a treewide change. But: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt does show: 3) DT binding files should be dual licensed. The preferred license tag is (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). So perhaps use code like: my $msg_level = \&WARN; $msg_level = \&CHK if ($file); if (&{$msg_level}("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG", "The preferred bindings license is '(GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)'\n" . $herecurr) so that when checkpatch is run over existing files, this message is not emitted unless using --strict. Maybe something like: --- scripts/checkpatch.pl | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index f3b8434..1734c9b 100755 --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl @@ -3124,6 +3124,17 @@ sub process { if (!is_SPDX_License_valid($spdx_license)) { WARN("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG", "'$spdx_license' is not supported in LICENSES/...\n" . $herecurr); + } + if ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ && + $spdx_license !~ /\(GPL-2\.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause\)/) { + my $msg_level = \&WARN; + $msg_level = \&CHK if ($file); + if (&{$msg_level}("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG", + + "DT binding documents should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)\n" . $herecurr) && + $fix) { + $fixed[$fixlinenr] =~ s/SPDX-License-Identifier: .*/SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)/; + } } } }
