Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > 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 ? > > > > > > Comment on what exactly? I don't understand the problem here, care to > > > summarize it? > > > > In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted https:// > > patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > [...] > > - * > > - * 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. > > > > in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver (drivers/media/platform/ > > xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it, > > stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an explicit ack > > from the official driver's maintainers. My position is that such a change > > doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to track all copyright > > holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack from the respective > > maintainers. > > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no > copyright is either. > > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right > now. We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work > as being acceptable. > > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...) To at least > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.) Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes. Thanks, Mauro
