On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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] Thanks for the reference. I see that Linus prefers converting entire comment into // style. I was not arguing about SPDX line but entire existing copyright comment which follows it: > +// > +// Copyright (c) 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > +// Jaswinder Singh <jassi.brar@xxxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Krzysztof > > [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
 |