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@xxxxxxxxx, maybe 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 replacement. 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). > > I still think these conversions are probably fine, but some points that perhaps > need an explicit explanation are: > > * 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). > > * Replacing with SPDX on files that explicitly say "DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE > COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER." Just add the SPDX tag... > > * Using BSD-3-Clause when the license text in the file header has the copyright > holder name instead of "copyright holder", thus making it not an exact > word-for-word match with LICENSES/preferred/BSD-3-Clause. (It seems there 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). > > * Using "GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause" for the two crct10dif-ce-core.S files. > 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. -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
