On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2,
> > > > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all happened except we explicitly
> > > > > list the license of the file, instead of it being "implicit" before.
> > > >
> > > > Well if Christoph owns the copyright (if there is one) and he has stated
> > > > he believes it is too trivial to copyright then it needs an SPDX tag that
> > > > indicates the rightsholder has stated it's too trivial to copyright and
> > > > (by estoppel) revoked any right they might have to pursue a claim.
> > >
> > > If Cristoph has revoked any right to pursue a claim, then he's also
> > > legally given up the right to complain if, say, Bradley Kuhn starting
> > > distributing a version with a GPLv3 permission statement --- or if Greg
> > > K-H adds a GPLv2 SPDX identifier. :-)
> >
> >
> > First Christoph really appreciateѕ spelling his name right.
> >
> > Second Christoph really appreciates talking to him when trying to slap
> > on licensing bits on his code. I'm not evil, but I'd really like to
> > understand what you are doing and why, and I might be fairly agreeable
> > if that makes sense.
>
> I already described it in the pull request, and in this patch itself,
The upstream commit b24413180f5600 ("License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license
identifier to files with no license") mentions:
Many source files in the tree are missing licensing information, which
makes it harder for compliance tools to determine the correct license.
We typically have not cared bout this, what has changed for us to want
to actually go ahead and do all this work?
What happened?
It further states:
By default all files without license information are under the default
license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2.
Update the files which contain no license information with the 'GPL-2.0'
SPDX license identifier. The SPDX identifier is a legally binding
shorthand, which can be used instead of the full boiler plate text.
It says a bit about legally binding stuff, that's strong language, however its
unclear to me about what it could mean for dual licensed stuff where the goal
is for the GPL to apply say on Linux but another license outside of Linux.
So what type of legally binding definition was being concocted here, how did such
consensus get reached and why did we turn around and decide to embrace it all
of a sudden whereas we had not done so before?
If you had already described this please let me know, I really tried looking and
could not find it on commit b24413180f5600 ("License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0
license identifier to files with no license"), a pointer would help.
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
