On 7 February 2018 at 17:18, Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/7/2018 3:59 AM, Julian Calaby wrote: >> >> Hi Shannon, >> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Shannon Nelson >> <shannon.nelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Add the appropriate SPDX license tags to the Sun network drivers >>> as outlined in Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/Kconfig | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.c | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.h | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/niu.c | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunbmac.c | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunqe.c | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet.c | 1 + >>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet_common.c | 1 + >>> 11 files changed, 11 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/Kconfig >>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/Kconfig >>> index b2caf51..7b982e0 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/Kconfig >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/Kconfig >>> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>> # >>> # Sun network device configuration >>> # >> >> >> I'm not sure that Kconfig files count as source, right? > > > My read of license-rules.rst and the existing examples such as ./Kconfig, > ./drivers/Kconfig, and many others, suggest this is a correct patch. > >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.c >>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.c >>> index 113bd57..9020b08 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/cassini.c >>> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ >>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>> /* cassini.c: Sun Microsystems Cassini(+) ethernet driver. >>> * >>> * Copyright (C) 2004 Sun Microsystems Inc. >> >> >> I understand that this is the specified way to do this, but it's >> exceptionally ugly. >> >> Also, shouldn't the SPDX line _replace_ the usual "this program is >> free software" license paragraphs? My understanding is that the SPDX >> line is functionally equivalent to having the terms spelled out. > > > Yes, the SPDX line is intended to suffice as the licensing in those files > where there is no other licensing statement. Where there already is a > statement of some sort, I'm following the wisdom and example of those who've > been working on this before me: if GregKH and others are happy with adding > one line and leaving the rest, I'm happy with it. > > sln > >> >> Thanks, >> Hi everyone I had a look at the SPDX webpage (https://spdx.org/licenses/) and 'GPL-2.0' is listed as a deprecated identifier as of 5.jan 2018. I guess this will be a issue when using an externally managed identifier for licensing. - Kjetil Oftedal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
