On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 11:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:37:33AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 16:38, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 1:42 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> 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? > > I recommend yes, leave them as-is until the legal people who actually > care about having SPDX lines in all of the files take the time to do the > work to resolve these issues. > > Remember, they are the ones asking for it, no need for us to do their > work for them :) > Good point.
