Hi guys, On 15.12.2017 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > 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. Please do not apply this patch till I get approval from legal. I have already discussed things about SPDX some weeks ago. Thanks, Michal
