On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:17:54PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > > As far as I know, none of the licenses explicitly say > > copyright license must be on each file. Just that the distribution of > > source must include the copyright and license statement. Exactly how > > that is done is not explicitly specified. > > This is also my take. What is done here is not much different than > refactoring duplicated code so it leaves in a single place: > > - by "value" at the root in COPYING and in the Documentation. > - by "reference" in the code proper as SPDX ids. > > Therefore essential and common requirements to include the license > text is fulfilled in the kernel. > > Note that there are a few offenders that will need to clean up their > acts as they came up will both long and "un-removable and > un-alterable" crazy legalese blurbs [1] prefix this: > > "DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER" > > These will have to be taken care on a case by case basis. These are > pretty stupid and IMHO should have never been allowed to be added to > the kernel in the first place and are ugly warts. It could very well > be that these are not really GPL-compliant notices FWIW: keeping > notices and copyrights is quite different from a restriction of > altering things by moving them around which is exactly what is > happening with the SPDX-ification here. > > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs.h?h=v4.15-rc5#n5 Lustre is now owned by Intel so I suspect that some throat clearing noises in the right direction could easily take care of the issue with those files.... - Ted -- 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
