On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Andi Shyti <andi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>>> > - * Copyright (C) 2009 Samsung Electronics Ltd. >>>> > - * Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> > - * >>>> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >>>> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by >>>> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or >>>> > - * (at your option) any later version. >>>> > - * >>>> > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, >>>> > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >>>> > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the >>>> > - * GNU General Public License for more details. >>>> > - */ >>>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>>> >>> >>>> Existing license corresponds to GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0. >>> >>> mmmhhh... isn't it deprecated from 2.0rc2? Current SPDX version >>> 2.6 doesn't have GPL-2.0+ in the list of licenses. >>> >>> https://spdx.org/licenses/ >>> >>> I can improve the commit log to state it more clearly. Would that >>> work? >> >> No. The license identifier is deprecated, not the license itself. >> Instead the, the SPDX says: <<This new syntax supports the ability to >> use a simple “+” operator after a license short identifier to indicate >> “or later version” (e.g. GPL-2.0+)>>. The spec [1] mentions it again: >> "An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary"+" operator >> suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later >> version. For example: GPL-2.0+" >> >> Existing kernel sources follow this convention. >> >>> BTW, is it really a change of license? >> >> Yes, it is. Or maybe not license itself but it terms and specific >> elements. GPL-2.0 does not say "any later option at your choice". Let >> me quote: >> "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program >> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and >> "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and >> conditions either of that version or of any later version published by >> the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a >> version number of this License, you may choose any version ever >> published by the Free Software Foundation." [2] >> >> What to add more here? GPL-2.0 only does not allow you to use any >> later version ever published by FSF. >> >>> >>>> Why changing the comment style? >>> >>> That's SPDX, right? by adding the SPDX-License-Identifier the >>> GPLv2 statement becomes redundant and we can remove some lines. >> >> But it does not explain why existing comment has to be rewritten into //. >> >> [1] https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version >> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > IMHO you should refer to Thomas doc patches instead of looking for > details elsewhere [1] > They are the authoritative doc for the kernel. I was actually checking this with existing source code (after applying these patches) and GPLv2.0+any_later was converted to "GPL-2.0+". Let's look at specific example: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/946 "+ For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use: + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+" I do not understand then whether you are agreeing or arguing with my point. :) Best regards, Krzysztof > > CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman > CC: Thomas Gleixner > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |