On Mon, May 16 2022 at 20:52, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, May 16 2022 at 15:14, Max Mehl wrote:
>> Thank you for picking up the effort to add license (and perhaps also
>> copyright) info to all files in the Kernel.
>
> Adding copyright notices retroactively is not going to happen
> ever. That's just impossible.
>
>>> The exclude of files and directories is hardcoded in the script which makes
>>> it hard to maintain and the information cannot be accessed by external tools.
>>
>> Unfortunately, excluding files (i.e. not adding machine-readable
>> license/copyright information to it) would also block reaching full
>> compliance with the REUSE best practices. Have you considered making
>> them available under GPL-2.0-only or a license similar to public domain
>> [^2]?
>
> The LICENSE directory is already handled by spdxcheck as the license
> information is read from there. And no, we cannot add a GPL-2.0-only
> identifier to all of the files under the LICENSE directory for obvious
> reasons.
>
> license-rules.rst is not longer a problem as all incarnations have a
> proper SPDX identifier today.
There is also an argument to be made whether we really need to have SPDX
identifiers on trivial files:
#include <someheader.h>
<EOF>
Such files are not copyrightable by any means. So what's the value of
doubling the line count to add an SPDX identifier? Just to make nice
statistics?
Thanks,
tglx
