On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 09:57:51AM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello, > > On 11/2/19 11:25, Roland Hieber wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:09:19AM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 8/2/19 09:59, Roland Hieber wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 06:48:26AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > >>>> Hi Roland, > >>>> > >>>> please remove deprecated license headers in same patch. > >>> > >>> I decided to leave them to record the original author's intent. There > >>> are several variations on the GPL headers in the project, the one > >>> extreme is the full GPL license header including a warranty disclaimer, > >>> but the other extreme is only a "GPLv2" and nothing more. We can decide > >>> on the project level to apply the warranty disclaimer. But by removing > >>> the license headers from individual files, the original author intent is > >>> lost – maybe the didn't want to include the disclaimer, maybe they > >>> didn't care, in any case it is not in our possibility to decide over > >>> their copyright matters and for most of the cases it is too late to > >>> track some of the people down and ask them. > >>> > >>> This all becomes important when someone forks our files to a new > >>> project. And if that someone does not know what the SPDX license tags > >>> actually mean, it's better to have the original documentation on the > >>> file level. > >>> > >>> I noticed that Linux usually removes the license headers and only keeps > >>> the copyright lines, but I wasn't able to find any reason for that. Do > >>> you have more insight here? > >> > >> (Obligatory IANAL) > > > > (Me neither) > > > >> With the copyright, the author states their right to deal as they > >> see fit with the source code. For example they may relicense. Replacing the > >> copyright with a SPDX-License-Identifier won't preserve this information. > > > > That sounds like an argument for leaving the copyright headers in the > > individual files? > > Yes, leave copyright/authorship lines, but replace license text with > SPDX-License-Identifier. Ah, we're talking about different things then. I was using "copyright headers" to include the "(c) author" line as well as the license statement. I think my current version of the patch gives us best of both worlds, documentation of author intent as well as machine readability, so I don't think anything is lost here by adding the SPDX tags. -- Roland Hieber | r.hieber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Pengutronix e.K. | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5086 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
