On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:26:30PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:30:09PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Now that the SPDX tag is in all driver core files, that identifies the > > license in a specific and legally-defined manner. > > Takashi and Jiri mentioned that the effort to add SPDX tags to files which did > not have licensing was discussed at the maintainers summit and it was agreed > upon there that this made sense. That is wonderful. > > Naturally, even despite this, some still have their own questions about this > work [0]. And some others seem to actually have pointed out that the work > might > have some technical issues [1] likely worth considering. > > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171108171938.7df66c65@alans-desktop > > > So the extra GPL text wording can be removed > > Highlight *removed* > > > as it is no longer needed at all. > > This secondary however was not.
Was not what? Discussed? Yes it was. I think the lwn.net article even says so. > But this begs the question that if there is still questions, issues pointed > out, and request for a bit more open discussion about the *first* SPDX effort > of adding a tag to files which have no license, if there was *any* due process > for creating consensus for also going along with this *secondary* SPDX effort > of license *simplification* by replacing old boiler plate license tags with an > SPDX tag. > > At least internally within SUSE I can say so far that we are surprised by > these > patches and work. We did not know, and this is the first of communication of > such effort. > > Don't get me wrong, these simplifications make perfect sense to me! But in > dealing with licensing considerations before on Linux I've learned through > feedback from you, Alan, and Ted and others to also be *extremely* careful and > sensitive about licensing annotation matters, and this type of change seems to > likely deserve a bit more community consensus than what this seems to be > getting. > > Not even an RFC. So why rush this work in? I don't post RFCs :) As for "rush", not really, might as well do it sometime, so I've created a bunch of patches and merged some of them. It's going to be a lot of work, someone had to start it :) Thomas is working on a document to describe this, hopefully it will be done soon. > > This is done on a quest to remove the 700+ different ways that files in > > the kernel describe the GPL license text. And there's unneeded stuff > > like the address (sometimes incorrect) for the FSF which is never > > needed. > > Completely agreed, all this stuff is rather silly, however which tag is used, > when, and how seems to have never been discussed and vetted anywhere to my > knowledge. "which" tag is just SPDX, that's easy. As for "when and how", I don't understand the question. > Below I leave two examples of the patch, but leave in place the diffstat. I don't understand, do you object to the patches? Do you not think they should be merged? If so, please let me know. thanks, greg k-h
