Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:00 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > spdx > > Is there something preventing this from being applied > to some tree included in -next? Nothing than me being busy and not coming around to fix the last review comments.

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:00 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > spdx > > Is there something preventing this from being applied > to some tree included in -next? Nothing than me being busy and not coming around to fix the last review comments.

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:00 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > spdx Is there something preventing this from being applied to some tree included in -next?

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:00 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > spdx Is there something preventing this from being applied to some tree included in -next?

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 12:03:55 +0100 Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > Jonathan, > As an English Major, does this make sense to you? (using boilerplate > as a single word, not the kitten thing) Surely you're not calling me an English major? :) Anyway, I would use "boilerplate" in

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 12:03:55 +0100 Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > Jonathan, > As an English Major, does this make sense to you? (using boilerplate > as a single word, not the kitten thing) Surely you're not calling me an English major? :) Anyway, I would use "boilerplate" in a setting like this,

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Thomas, On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: [...] > +The common way of expressing the license of a source file is to add the > +matching boiler plate text into the top comment of the file. Due to I would likely go with boilerplate instead. Unless you

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Thomas, On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: [...] > +The common way of expressing the license of a source file is to add the > +matching boiler plate text into the top comment of the file. Due to I would likely go with boilerplate instead. Unless you are talking about the

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> +3. Syntax: >> + >> + A is either an SPDX short form license >> + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or when multiple licenses >> +

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> +3. Syntax: >> + >> + A is either an SPDX short form license >> + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or when multiple licenses >> + apply, an expression

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > +3. Syntax: > + > + A is either an SPDX short form license > + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or when multiple licenses > + apply, an expression consisting of keywords "AND", "OR", and "WITH" > + separating

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > +3. Syntax: > + > + A is either an SPDX short form license > + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or when multiple licenses > + apply, an expression consisting of keywords "AND", "OR", and "WITH" > + separating

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Pavel: On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2017-11-17 15:06:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) >> Thomas Gleixner escreveu: >> >> > Subject: Documentation: Add

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Pavel: On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2017-11-17 15:06:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) >> Thomas Gleixner escreveu: >> >> > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly >>

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Let me see if I got it straight. At drivers/media/common/siano/smsir.c, > we have, currently: .. snip snip .. > With is completely out of standard. I'd like to add an SPDX tag there > and, while doing

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Let me see if I got it straight. At drivers/media/common/siano/smsir.c, > we have, currently: .. snip snip .. > With is completely out of standard. I'd like to add an SPDX tag there > and, while doing that, adjust the comments. >

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Em Sat, 25 Nov 2017 09:30:46 -1000 Linus Torvalds escreveu: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > There's logical place in the comment, and it should look like this: > > > > /* > > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Em Sat, 25 Nov 2017 09:30:46 -1000 Linus Torvalds escreveu: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > There's logical place in the comment, and it should look like this: > > > > /* > > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > > * > > *

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > There's logical place in the comment, and it should look like this: > > /* > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > * > * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > There's logical place in the comment, and it should look like this: > > /* > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > * > * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat 2017-11-25 09:11:58, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > That does not sound like he was deciding between /* */ and //. And > > actually this was in context of files with no existing license. You > > made the ugly patches. Stop

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat 2017-11-25 09:11:58, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > That does not sound like he was deciding between /* */ and //. And > > actually this was in context of files with no existing license. You > > made the ugly patches. Stop hiding behind

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > That does not sound like he was deciding between /* */ and //. And > actually this was in context of files with no existing license. You > made the ugly patches. Stop hiding behind Linus. No, Linus happily stands up for //.

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > That does not sound like he was deciding between /* */ and //. And > actually this was in context of files with no existing license. You > made the ugly patches. Stop hiding behind Linus. No, Linus happily stands up for //. I really don't

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Wed 2017-11-22 14:48:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) > > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Fri,

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Wed 2017-11-22 14:48:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) > > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri 2017-11-17 15:06:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly > > identify file licenses > > From: Thomas

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri 2017-11-17 15:06:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly > > identify file licenses > > From: Thomas Gleixner > > Date: Fri, 10

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > >

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Introcude a

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:23:29 +0100 Christoph Hellwig escreveu: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong > > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:23:29 +0100 Christoph Hellwig escreveu: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong > > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright > > header

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright > header on both C and H files at development time. Yes. > Make headers_install

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright > header on both C and H files at development time. Yes. > Make headers_install

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage > > > as

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage > > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do: > > Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do: > > Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Hi Thomas, > Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses > should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well > as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to > refer to (LICENSES/). I've given this a once over now,

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Hi Thomas, > Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses > should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well > as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to > refer to (LICENSES/). I've given this a once over now,

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do: Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much prefer that over the nasty C99 comments to start with.

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do: Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much prefer that over the nasty C99 comments to start with.

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Mauro, On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly > > identify file licenses > > From: Thomas Gleixner

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Mauro, On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > > > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly > > identify file licenses > > From: Thomas Gleixner > > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Hi Thomas, Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly > identify file licenses > From: Thomas Gleixner > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100 > > Add a

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Hi Thomas, Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly > identify file licenses > From: Thomas Gleixner > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100 > > Add a file to the Documentation directory to

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Kate Stewart wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > + The files in this directory the full license text and `Metatags`_. > > > Missing verb. Possibly "contain"? > > The files in this directory contain the full license

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Kate Stewart wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > + The files in this directory the full license text and `Metatags`_. > > > Missing verb. Possibly "contain"? > > The files in this directory contain the full license text and `Metatags`_.

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly > identify file licenses > From: Thomas Gleixner > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100 > > Add a file to the

Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly > identify file licenses > From: Thomas Gleixner > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100 > > Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file