On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 05:19:27PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Darrick, > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:13:19AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > +++ b/tests/generic/719 > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ > > > > +#! /bin/bash > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-newer > > > > > > Please run scripts/spdxcheck.py on that file and consult the licensing > > > documentation. > > > > -or-later, sorry. > > > > So .... now that everyone who wanted these SPDX identifiers have spread > > "GPL-2.0+" around the kernel and related projects (xfsprogs, xfstests) > > just in time for SPDX 3.0 to deprecate the "+" syntax, what are we > > supposed to do? Another treewide change to fiddle with SPDX syntax? > > Can we just put: > > > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > > > > in the LICENSES/GPL-2.0 file like the kernel does? > > The kernel is not going to change that because we have started with this > before the s/+/-or-later/ happened. Tools need to read both. > > > Is that even going to stay that way? I thought I heard that Greg was > > working on phasing out the "2.0+" tags since SPDX deprecated that? > > For new stuff we should use -or-later methinks. For new stuff, if you wish to be "kind" to some community members, we should use "-or-later" and "-only". But as you say, both are fine. And no, I am NOT working on phasing out any SPDX tags for the older stuff. Personally, I like the older ones. > Yeah, we should add a MAINTAINERS entry for LICENSES. Greg and myself are > going to be volunteered I fear. Yeah, I figured it was only a matter of time. Let me go create an entry given that we already have git tree for it in linux-next for a while now... thanks, greg k-h
