Hi Joe, (CC'ing Greg and adding context for easier understanding) On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote: > >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >>>> Em Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu: > >>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and > >>>>> related drivers. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Dhaval, > >>>> > >>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid > >>>> that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a > >>>> patch touching at the driver's license tags. > >>> > >>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause > >>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of > >>> any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the > >>> last kernel release. > >> > >> 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... But this patch only removes the following text: - * 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. and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header. > > 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. But still manually reviewed as far as I know. > > 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. Correct, but the files touched by this patch do. This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon at the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment on this ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
