Gilad, On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Replace verbatim GPL v2 copy with SPDX tag. > > Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <snip> > --- a/drivers/staging/ccree/cc_crypto_ctx.h > +++ b/drivers/staging/ccree/cc_crypto_ctx.h > @@ -1,18 +1,5 @@ > -/* > - * Copyright (C) 2012-2017 ARM Limited or its affiliates. > - * > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > - * published by the Free Software Foundation. > - * > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > - * GNU General Public License for more details. > - * > - * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > - * along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > - */ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > +/* Copyright (C) 2012-2018 ARM Limited or its affiliates. */ Thank you for using the SPDX tags! Now, while I appreciate your attempt to use the latest and greatest SPDX license id definitions (published by SPDX a few days agao), THIS IS NOT a welcomed initiative. Please stick instead to use ONLY the SPDX license ids that are defined in Thomas doc patches [1]: e.g. use instead: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 and please DO NOT USE GPL-2.0-only for now. The rationale is simple: from a kernel standpoint we cannot depend on the latest changes of an external spec such as SPDX (and I am involved with SPDX alright but I am wearing a kernel hat here). This is why things have been carefully documented for the kernel proper by Thomas. It is perfectly fine at some times in the future to adopt the newest license ids, but this will have to happen in an orderly fashion with a proper doc update and the eventual tree-wide changes to update every occurrence. This cannot happen any other way or this would defeat the whole purpose to have clear licensing kernel-wide: using the latest and greatest introduces variations and creates a mess that we want to avoid in the first place. CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/28/323 -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
