Dear Krzysztof, On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Here, this should be as a top line: // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ So I agree with the SPDX id but also pointing to the use of the C++ // comment style as requested by Linus [1] [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/133 [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/125 [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/715 [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/805 -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne -- 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
 |