Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530 Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > 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? I would wait for their feedback. Thanks, Mauro
