On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:53:54PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 11:28:30AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> > It's good to have SPDX identifiers in all files to make it easier to >> >> > audit the kernel tree for correct licenses. >> >> > >> >> > Update the drivers/usb/ and include/linux/usb* files with the correct >> >> > SPDX license identifier based on the license text in the file itself. >> >> > The SPDX identifier is a legally binding shorthand, which can be used >> >> > instead of the full boiler plate text. >> >> > >> >> > This work is based on a script and data from Thomas Gleixner, Philippe >> >> > Ombredanne, and Kate Stewart. >> >> > >> >> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> I noticed several MODULE_LICENSE macros which did not match the headers >> >> (e.g. "GPL" being used for version 2 only modules) for which I'll send a >> >> follow-up patch. >> >> >> >> Someone should probably write a script for that once the SPDX >> >> identifiers are in. >> > >> > Yes, I think that someone might have a script for that, it will be much >> > easier to detect these things now. The issue is that the "v2" marking >> > came after the original "GPL" marking for MODULE_LICENSE() from what I >> > remember, so many of those will be wrong. >> >> If this can help my [1] tool can detect both header-level licenses-in-comments >> as well as MODULE_LICENSE macros. Based on that we could reasonably >> easily craft a script that scans a file and report discrepancies >> between the two. > > That would be great, as there are going to be a lot of these showing up > soon, as we start adding the SPDX identifiers to the files based on the > license text and the mis-matches become obvious. I can run a scancode scan to list modules with a license that does not match their MODULE_LICENSE (irrespective of whether they have an SPDX id already or not) I can then either provide a CSV (or provide an eventually big patch). Which do you prefer? What should be the tree to run this on: Yours? usb? Linus's? tip of the tree or a tag? If you prefer a patch, what should be the rationale when licenses do not match? I guess update the MODULE_LICENSE to match the license comment? -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
