Greg, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> How about a book, e.g. describing a patch submission process (but not >> a copy of kernel's Documentation). The same? > > That does not make sense, please explain. Why not? I can put such a text on a book (say, an e-book) as well. I'd say you're right with the absence of indication to the contrary - but if someone explicitly states something is not (e.g. yet) under GPL, then how one could say SPDX-something has legal precedence is beyound me. >> Also - in all countries? Most of them? > > Yes. I assume the latter and not both :-) > S-o-b is a DIFFERENT thing entirely. Please go read the DCO for what > you are agreeing to there, it is a declaration for what you are doing. Well, that's my position. >> From my perspective, the SPDX-License-Identifier is only meaningful when >> the file is actually a part of the kernel, or if, at least, it's been >> presented for merge, with Signed-off-by etc. > > Not true at all, sorry. Same for a Copyright line. The difference seems to me a copyright is regulated by international agreements and various national laws. A big part of the world doesn't need the "copyright line", the "protection" is automatic. But yes, I will remember to ask our lawyers about it. Now that I know I need to. -- Krzysztof Hałasa Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz Przemysłowy Instytut Automatyki i Pomiarów PIAP Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warszawa
