From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E89BC04AB6 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:41:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7209226D4A for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:41:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="ZzPZv6Ph"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=lohutok.net header.i=@lohutok.net header.b="SGp8L+nB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726428AbfEaRl1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 13:41:27 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:54887 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725934AbfEaRl1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 13:41:27 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6ACD672F2; Fri, 31 May 2019 13:41:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from allison@lohutok.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=subject:to:cc :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=0DkdMtJi5aVe kQfSZNO4XRzOiq4=; b=ZzPZv6PhF64YzSYHo9bZmdcPD5waKveRwVY5uMZI6dVA 6Xgk516YAg0iLG7p7NX/FJqMjljmwz7PDbn0Z+L1eCAXiJi5XlJo5VgWfWfjabNd CaoYhumbXsd3qK8qJtzJnvKUtyBfIrsoj4al0P+kFdO0yVcGf9x+oD1LSMhBXWs= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA77672F1; Fri, 31 May 2019 13:41:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from allison@lohutok.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=lohutok.net; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2018-11.pbsmtp; bh=9NBiSmJ35GcYjmzhXIEJ1WcPps9P3nMJtYgt1yOunqw=; b=SGp8L+nBHj+13JI2PSfEf0IOcBSEiWSF5DVe15e4R0jFOmKQopGt5In5Gb6YnN6cDOh0O+HCrSADOOsyJjdIDdD4PKOwAqc3tZerTuf3SJ85ZoBdOcq8U2e3gOX8gASVYqmrgH16b2scJ9+kLnkXnPs1/RcV79J/fK0nGGZtbaE= Received: from [192.168.1.186] (unknown [73.126.2.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4F94672EE; Fri, 31 May 2019 13:41:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from allison@lohutok.net) Subject: Re: [Batch 11 patch 11/25] treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - rule 261 To: Richard Fontana Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org References: <20190529141224.009795289@linutronix.de> <20190529141333.476814615@linutronix.de> From: Allison Randal Message-ID: <546822f8-fbd9-6279-c65d-de72836162b4@lohutok.net> Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 13:41:22 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4F009F72-83CB-11E9-80D2-8D86F504CC47-44123303!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org On 5/29/19 2:04 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:22 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> this is an extension to the linux operating system and is covered by >> the same gnu general public license that covers the linux kernel [...] > I don't think this one is so clear, because, not knowing what was in > this particular licensor's head, it isn't clear what "the same gnu > general public license that covers the linux kernel" means even if one > assumes the Linux kernel is covered specifically by GPLv2 only. I > might be inclined to say GPL-2.0-only as the safest conclusion, but > might be worth further thought. Nod, whatever we decide applies when an unversioned notice mentions the COPYING file, seems like it should apply here. We may decide that's GPL-2.0-only, but it's worth reviewing these together as a set, after we've finished the first pass and identified the weird ones. Allison