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 :) thanks, greg k-h
