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?
