On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 10:06:57PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > diff --git a/examples/nft-chain-add.c b/examples/nft-chain-add.c
> > index 13be982324180..fc2e939dae8b4 100644
> > --- a/examples/nft-chain-add.c
> > +++ b/examples/nft-chain-add.c
> > @@ -1,10 +1,7 @@
>
> Maybe more intuitive to place
>
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
>
> in the first line of this file? This is what was done in iproute2.
Fine with me! I just semi-automatically replaced the license text block
by this specifier and didn't care about its position. A quick check of
how things are done in linux.git shows it's not entirely consistent
there: When Thomas Gleixner did an equivalent to my patch in commit
0fdebc5ec2ca ("treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX -
gpl-2.0_56.RULE (part 1)"), he used double-slash comments, while Greg
Kroah-Hartman chose to use multi-line comments in commit b24413180f56
("License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no
license"). Is this random or am I missing a detail?
BTW: Jan suggested to also (introd)use SPDX-FileCopyrightText label, but
spdx.dev explicitly states: "Therefore, you should not remove or modify
existing copyright notices in files when adding an SPDX ID."[1] What's
your opinion about it?
Thanks, Phil
[1] https://spdx.dev/learn/handling-license-info/
