Re: [patch V4 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

261+O-Nm+9HDoEn9RbFjH=5j9i1c2ggmug2g...@mail.gmail.com > > Add the required tags for reference and tooling. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jo...@fsfe.org> -- Jonas Öberg Executive Director FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of technology in your hands. Your support enables our work, please join us today http://fsfe.org/join

Re: [patch V4 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

RMf261+O-Nm+9HDoEn9RbFjH=5j9i1c2ggmug2g...@mail.gmail.com > > Add the required tags for reference and tooling. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg -- Jonas Öberg Executive Director FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of technology in your hands. Your support enables our work, please join us today http://fsfe.org/join

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

Hi Alan, > Which raises another question. If there are multiple GPL 2.0 texts which > are *supposedly* legally identical but this has never been tested in law > -that implies SPDX is wrong in tagging them identically in case they turn > out not to be... For the cases, and the differences we're

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

Hi Alan, > Which raises another question. If there are multiple GPL 2.0 texts which > are *supposedly* legally identical but this has never been tested in law > -that implies SPDX is wrong in tagging them identically in case they turn > out not to be... For the cases, and the differences we're

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

>This is neither the GPL-2.0 from >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt I think it should be the copy from COPYING, in fact, since that's the exact GPL 2.0 license the kernel is under. Library GPL is factually correct; Lesser GPL is a newer name for the same license, but COPYING retains the

Re: [patch V2 02/11] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

>This is neither the GPL-2.0 from >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt I think it should be the copy from COPYING, in fact, since that's the exact GPL 2.0 license the kernel is under. Library GPL is factually correct; Lesser GPL is a newer name for the same license, but COPYING retains the

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

nce over now, cross referenced against our recommendations and checked the patch set. Happy with the latest versions circulated (V4 of 1/11 and V3 of the others). Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jo...@fsfe.org> Best, -- Jonas Öberg Executive Director FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of techno

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

nce over now, cross referenced against our recommendations and checked the patch set. Happy with the latest versions circulated (V4 of 1/11 and V3 of the others). Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg Best, -- Jonas Öberg Executive Director FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of technology in your hands.

Re: [patch 1/7] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Hi, > One other thing that occurred to me is that documentation files, too, > are copyrightable and should have license identifiers. Would it make sense to take an incremental approach to this? Get the source code and identifiers worked on by Thomas et al through first, then think about and fix

Re: [patch 1/7] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

Hi, > One other thing that occurred to me is that documentation files, too, > are copyrightable and should have license identifiers. Would it make sense to take an incremental approach to this? Get the source code and identifiers worked on by Thomas et al through first, then think about and fix

Re: [patch 2/7] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

Hi Thomas, I do appreciate your work on this, it's a welcome addition! > +SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 // GPLv2 only > +SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ // GPLv2 or later I am concerned about this though, as the SPDX-License-Identifier is well known to refer to the license of the document

Re: [patch 2/7] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

Hi Thomas, I do appreciate your work on this, it's a welcome addition! > +SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 // GPLv2 only > +SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ // GPLv2 or later I am concerned about this though, as the SPDX-License-Identifier is well known to refer to the license of the document

Re: Adding LICENSES folder for REUSE

Hi Charlemagne, > Since some people started to add the SPDX headers to some files, it > might now be the right time to ask to get a LICENSES folder which will > contain the separate licenses. I wouldn't do that now. Adding SPDX license identifiers is in most cases quite sufficient and something

Re: Adding LICENSES folder for REUSE

Hi Charlemagne, > Since some people started to add the SPDX headers to some files, it > might now be the right time to ask to get a LICENSES folder which will > contain the separate licenses. I wouldn't do that now. Adding SPDX license identifiers is in most cases quite sufficient and something