Hi Mauro, On 18.12.2017 08:32, Michal Simek wrote: > 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. There is no concern from xilinx legal about this change that's why Acked-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Michal
