Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:02:21 +0200 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > 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. I doubt any Company's legal department would give a blanket approval for others to touch on their licensing text. > > 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 ? If you look at this patch's summary: 651 files changed, 651 insertions(+) And on the patch contents itself, it is just adding a SPDX header. It doesn't remove any text from the license. On Dhaval's patch, it is not only adding SPDX header. It is also removing the legal text from it: diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c index 522cdfdd3345..2e5daf7dba1a 100644 --- a/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c +++ b/drivers/media/platform/xilinx/xilinx-dma.c @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 /* * Xilinx Video DMA * @@ -6,10 +7,6 @@ * * Contacts: Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xxxxxxxxxx> * Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - * - * 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 that's the part I'm more concerned about: we should give Xilinx enough time to review and approve such change. Thanks, Mauro
