On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 02:28:10PM +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:17 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:30:14PM +0800, Cai Huoqing wrote: > > > On 16 12月 21 13:17:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > Some files have been flagged with the new LGPL-2.1-or-later > > > > identifier which replace the original LGPL-2.1+ in the SPDX license > > > > identifier specification, but the identifiers are not mentioned as > > > > valid in the LGPL-2.1 license file. > > > > > > > > Add it, together with the LGPL-2.1-only at the the license file. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 > > > > index 27bb4342a3e8..b73f9b6230f5 100644 > > > > --- a/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 > > > > +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 > > > > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > > > > Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 > > > > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-only > > > > Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ > > > > +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later > > > > SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1.html > > > The URL is deprecated, do we need to update it together. > > > > No. > > > > > The same, GPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0 > > > > Again, no. We are using an older version of the SPDX specification, > > this is fine. > > > > Mauro's patch just makes sure that spdxcheck.py does not complain > about the SPDX License Identifiers from SPDX spec v2 and from v3. It > really does not deprecate anything or implies that everything in the > kernel needs to move to v3 (which might really be some crazy > disturbing refactoring effort without a lot of gain), but it allows > developers that want to use the tags from SPDX spec v3 can do so. > > I would assume making the kernel/a tool in the kernel supporting > something more while being backwards-compatible is the standard way we > work... So, Greg, this patch is fine to be included, right? Yes, this patch is fine, I will queue it up in a bit, thanks! greg k-h
