Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg, On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mauro, > > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu: >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> >> 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. > > If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general > approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket > approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that > correct ? That is reasonable for me. > > In that case, could the fact that commit > > commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460 > Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100 > > USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/ > > add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a > blanket approval ? > I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal Simek(michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx) and Hyun.kwon@xxxxxxxxxx ACK this patch then it will go into mainline? > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart >
