On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 04:15:08PM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote: > Hi Jason, > I've discussed it with my legal contacts, and it does sound like > the best path forward at this time is to come up with a new SPDX > id for this variant, given its pervasive nature. I'll put a > request in to the SPDX legal group for a new identifier, and we > can shift the conversation over to there for now. Okay. Thank you. Doug and I will wait to hear back from you before allowing any more SPDX tags for this license text in the subsystem. Please let me know if any more information is required, I may be able to dig up more information if required to do so. > It will probably take a month or so to work through their meetings, > but that is going to be less problematic than the other option > for cleaning this up. Thanks for the detailed background, it > helped. Kate When requesting a tag can some text be added to the notes in the SPDX database alerting the reader to check the license carefully as there are many things claiming to be this license? For instance in the kernel these four files: arch/arm/crypto/crct10dif-ce-core.S arch/arm64/crypto/crct10dif-ce-core.S arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx-x86_64.S arch/x86/crypto/crct10dif-pcl-asm_64.S Claim to be the OpenIB.org BSD license, but Intel has modified it in a way I've never seen before. And in user space we see this version claiming to be the "OpenIB.org BSD license" https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/blob/master/COPYING.BSD_FB That one already matches the SPDX BSD-2-CLAUSE though. Given this, I expect there are others too. Thanks, Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
