On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 08:38:57PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > at 1:35 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 05:33:46 -0000, Nadav Amit said: > > > >>>> In addition, updating the year and adding a license tag. > > > >>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > >>> You still have a lot of boiler-plate text in here that can be removed. > >>> Please do so. > > > >> But what else do you want me to remove? This is a standard GPL license. If > >> I > >> am required to remove the GPL license, I will have to run checks to ensure > >> it is appropriate. > > > > You mean the checks that you should have done when you stuck the SPDX > > tag on the file? > > > > (Hint: Think of the SPDX tag as a '#include gplv2.license.blurb" :) > > I matched the SPDX to the license we have, tut I don’t know whether my > company regards an SPDX tag as a sufficient means to protect copyrights, > which allows to remove all the rest of the text.
Copyrights have nothing to do with SPDX lines, please don't get copyrights and licenses confused, they are two totally different things. Removing the license boilerplate and only using a SPDX line for the license marking does not change the copyright of a file at all. And if you use the correct SPDX line, it will not change the license of the file at all either. If your company's lawyers have any questions about this, I am glad to discuss this with them and point them at the lawyers that created the SPDX group. But really, your company lawyers already know all about this, you should not have any problems at all. If you are worried about this, please contact your open source group and they will be glad to help out. I have names if you want me to send them to you off-list :) thanks, greg k-h
