On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Joe, Hi Laurent. > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote: > > Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or > > explicit license is different than removing the license > > text itself. > > The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text. I understand that. At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable as that license states: * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. etc... > The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel in one go > was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks. Not really, it was scripted. > This is no different > than not including the full GPL license in every header file but only pointing > to it through its name and reference, as every kernel source file does. Not every kernel source file had a license text or a reference to another license file.
