On Sun, May 22 2022 at 1:33P -0400, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 10:55 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Richard! > > > > Sorry for pestering you, but the amount of files is just too much to split > > it up and targetting the authors is difficult because quite some of them > > are not longer at RHT. The files are all (c) RedHat or Sistina Software, > > which is part of RedHat since 2003. > > > > This is part of the effort to clean up the licensing mess in the kernel and > > convert it to SPDX license identifiers as the only source of license > > information. > > > > Archaeology found the following unspecific GPL license references, which > > have been authored by RedHat/Sistina. > > > > To clean this up, can you please either advise the RHT kernel team or let > > me know which GPLv2 variant to use for the files and I run it through my > > cleanup machinery. Hi Thomas, yes I'd love for you to take on the changes to run through your machinery. I think we have consensus in that I agree with everything Richard has said. Proposed changes look good, thanks! > Hi Thomas, > > I assume you're selecting files that have some sort of Red Hat or > Sistina copyright notice. Just as a disclaimer, I can't speak to > copyrights in these files that may be held by other organizations or > individuals (and I can't say definitively whether any file bearing a > Red Hat or Sistina copyright notice has or retains any copyright owned > by Red Hat). With that said: > > > 1) this file is released under the gpl > > I am fine with saying that any Red Hat copyrights (including any > Sistina copyrights acquired by Red Hat) in these can be represented > with SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0. > > I would note that the following files did not seem to have any Red Hat > or Sistina copyright notices: > > > drivers/md/dm-log-writes.c > > drivers/md/dm-ps-queue-length.c > > drivers/md/dm-ps-service-time.c > > drivers/md/dm-unstripe.c > > drivers/md/dm-zero.c These can all have the following added: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0. > Skipping category 2 for the moment: > > > 3) (c) 2000 red hat gpl d > > > 4) this code is covered by the gpl > > > 5) this software may be freely redistributed under the terms of the gnu > > general public license you should have received a copy of the gnu general > > public license along with this program if not write to the free software > > foundation inc 675 mass ave cambridge ma 02139 usa > > > 6) released under the general public license (gpl) > > I am fine with saying that any Red Hat copyrights (including any > Sistina copyrights acquired by Red Hat) in these can be represented > with SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0. > > > 2) this file is released under the lgpl > > > > drivers/md/dm-core.h > > drivers/md/dm-log-userspace-base.c > > drivers/md/dm-log-userspace-transfer.c > > drivers/md/dm-log-userspace-transfer.h > > drivers/md/dm-log.c > > drivers/md/dm-rq.h > > drivers/md/dm.h > > include/linux/device-mapper.h > > include/linux/dm-dirty-log.h > > For these, if the question is just about what version of the LGPL we > should treat these as, I'd be fine with representing them as > SDPX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1. > > However, and I realize this may go beyond my 'remit' as someone > consulted for linux-spdx stuff or open some additional bag of worms, > I'm wondering if these would be better off just relicensed under > GPLv2, and thus represented as SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0. Yes, I think we should do that. > Even treating this code as having been LGPLv2.x-licensed, this would be > authorized or at any rate contemplated by the largely-overlooked > LGPLv2.0/LGPLv2.1 section 3. Suggesting this because it would seem to > help marginally with some of the goals of this initiative and also > because it's not obvious to me why LGPL would have been preferred over > GPLv2 for these files to begin with, assuming they weren't copied from > some unrelated LGPL-licensed project. I've cc'd Jonathan Brassow and > Mike Snitzer in case they have any thoughts on this. Thanks for bringing me in the loop. I appreciate it. Right, No real need for LGPL here (that I'm aware of). Thomas: do you have all the answers you need? Mike
