On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:47:04AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:29:03PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:20:42AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > > > > > > > What libxfs patch? And what "kernel one" are you referring to here? > > > > > > > > > I wrote the file and it has no copyright header because it conatians > > > > > trivial, non-copyrightable code. > > > > > > > > What file exactly? > > > > > > > > And from what I know, there is nothing that is "non-copyrightable". > > > > > > > > And this isn't changing the copyright of _ANYTHING_ it is just putting > > > > the explicit license of the file, on each file in the kernel, because it > > > > needs to be tracked. > > > > > > > > > I don't know why people think they can touch license information on > > > > > files I've written without even asking me. > > > > > > > > Nothing was changed, the license should be the exact same as it was > > > > before. But as I don't know what file you are referring to here, it's a > > > > bit hard to determine what you are talking about exactly :( > > > > > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_cksum.h > > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > I'll point out here that this file is shared with a userspace > package that has a mixed LGPL/GPL code base, so even if we disregard > what Christoph says, this file could actually be LGPL (like > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_fs.h) and not GPL. So from that perspective alone, > your process on deciding what license tag should be used is > flawed and these changes needed, at minimum, maintainer review. > > IMO, unannounced, unreviewed tree wide change via a back-door > commits sent straight to Linus reek of an attempt to avoid review > and oversight. This was not unannounced, it was posted to lkml and discussed at the kernel summit ahead of time. > And that is *completely unacceptible* when making claims about > important details like licenses for *code you do not know anything > about*. When a file does not have a license, again, all lawyers I have worked with said it is implicitly GPLv2, so we did the best we knew how at the time. If we got a few files wrong, please fix them up, I hit 11k files at once here. And how an internal file is shared with userspace is, to be fair, completely strange, you have to agree :) > We have a documented process for a reason: to stop shit like this > from happening. > > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all happened except we explicitly > > list the license of the file, instead of it being "implicit" before. > > You keep saying "no copyright has changed", despite being given an > explicit statement by the code author that this is *exactly what you > have done*. Again, no, the copyright was not changed. Whom ever held the original copyright still holds it today. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
