On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Oh dear. It seems I have been over enthusiastic with this. I shall post a revised patch set. Sorry for the noise. > > 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 > Just a thought - it might be useful to have an SPDX revision as part of the tag, e.g. SPDX-3.0-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only It seems it will make transitions such as this easier, me thinks. Maybe something to consider for SPDX 3.1 :-) Thanks, Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Coffee Drinker "If you take a class in large-scale robotics, can you end up in a situation where the homework eats your dog?" -- Jean-Baptiste Queru _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
