[patch 0/7] LICENSES: Add documentation and initial License files

[patch 0/7] LICENSES: Add documentation and initial License files

[Thomas Gleixner]

Folks!

First of all I want to apologize for the suboptimal process which brought
this initial SPDX annotation into the kernel. We surely should have posted
exactly this patch series first, but we were too focused on the actual
annotation and analysis work, which took place in the last 10 months. As is
happens often with work which occupies one on the 'technical' level
completely, documentation is the last thing to think of.

We got the message and worked on documentation and procedure in the last
couple of days and I seriously hope, that this can clarify the situation.

If we made any mistakes in the annotation process, please let us know as
soon as possible and we correct it, or send a patch to that effect.

I've seen a complaint that we didn't respect the intent of the developer
for a particular file, but this is exactly the problem we have to
address. A file without any reference does not give any hint on the intent
and by default all files contributed to a project without a license
reference fall under the license which covers the project itself. Sorry, we
really tried our best to deduce it.

A few people asked for the metadate which we used. It's available from

  https://tglx.de:~/tglx/spdx/spdx-inital.tar.xz

along with a GPG signature for the decompressed tarball itself:

  https://tglx.de:~/tglx/spdx/spdx-inital.tar.sig

The tarball contains the CSV files and the script which were used to apply
the annotations. The CSV table columns are:

 NR, filename, ScanCode Scan, Windriver-Scan, Concluded License

The 'Concluded License' column is what got associated in the end. All of
these have been manually audited several times by looking at the files,
context and history and rescanning with Philippes ScanCode tools.

We are going to upload the full kernel metadata, which is useful for the
outstanding annotation work next week, as we need to align the data with
the actually applied ones in the tarball. The data in the tarball is a
subset of the full list and was scrutinized again before applying by manual
inspection and Philippe doing scan comparisons. There were a few correction
to make, which did not make it back into the complete list yet.

If you want to create your own scan data, the ScanCode tool can be found
here:

 https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit.git

It's python based and simple to install and use. Philippe is willing to
help if there are questions or issues.

The Windriver Scan is based on Fossology which can be found here:

 https://www.fossology.org

You might want to use the online demo version of fossology as it is a bit
tedious to install. We used a scan from Windriver because that contains
aside of the pure scan based data manual corrections. Such manual
corrections are valuable metadata, which is certainly available inside the
companies behind fossology, but those have not published them so far.


Aside of the process discussion, there were quite some complaints about the
comment/tag format and placement. In the first versions we placed the tag
inside the top comment, but the final decision was made by Linus and that's
how it ended up the way it is and in which way it is documented now.

The following patches contain the full documentation how the SPDX tagging
of files should work and an initial import of actual license texts.

Thanks,

	Thomas

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

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: Documentation_Add_license-rules.rst_to_describe_how_to_properly_identify_file_licenses.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 11848 bytes --]

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/).

Thanks to Kate, Philippe and Greg for review and editing!

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

---
 Documentation/index.rst         |   12 +
 Documentation/license-rules.rst |  310 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 322 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/license-rules.rst

--- a/Documentation/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/index.rst
@@ -13,6 +13,18 @@ documents into a coherent whole.  Please
 documentation are welcome; join the linux-doc list at vger.kernel.org if
 you want to help out.
 
+Licensing documentation
+-----------------------
+
+The following describes the license of the Linux kernel source code
+(GPLv2), how to properly mark the license of individual files in the source
+tree, as well as links to the full license text.
+
+.. toctree::
+   :maxdepth: 2
+
+   license-rules.rst
+
 User-oriented documentation
 ---------------------------
 
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/license-rules.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
+Linux kernel licensing rules
+============================
+
+The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public
+License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as published by the Free Software
+Foundation, and provided in the COPYING file.  This documentation file is
+not meant to replace the COPYING file, but provides a description of how
+each source file should be annotated to make the licensing it is governed
+under clear and unambiguous.
+
+The license in the COPYING file applies to the kernel source as a whole,
+though individual source files can have a different license which is
+required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0:
+
+::
+
+    GPL-1.0+  :  GNU General Public License v1.0 or later
+    GPL-2.0+  :  GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
+    LGPL-2.0  :  GNU Library General Public License v2 only
+    LGPL-2.0+ :  GNU Library General Public License v2 or later
+    LGPL-2.1  :  GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 only
+    LGPL-2.1+ :  GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later
+
+Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license,
+i.e. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a
+permissive license like BSD, MIT etc.
+
+The Userspace API (UAPI) header files, which describe the interface of user
+space programs to the kernel are a special case.  According to the note
+in the kernel COPYING file the syscall interface is a clear boundary,
+which does not extend the GPL requirements to any software which uses
+them to communicate with the kernel.  Because the UAPI headers must be
+includable into any source files which create an executable running on
+the Linux kernel, the exception must be documented by a special license
+expression.
+
+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
+formatting, typos etc.  These "boiler plates" are hard to validate for
+tools, which are used in the context of license compliance.
+
+To avoid license inconsistencies and to help tooling it is required to
+add a Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) license identifier to each
+source file.  SPDX license identifiers are machine parsable and precise
+shorthands for the license under which the content of the file is
+contributed under.  SPDX license identifiers are managed by the SPDX
+Workgroup at the Linux Foundation and have been agreed on by partners
+throughout the industry, tool vendors, and legal teams.  For further
+information see https://spdx.org/
+
+The Linux kernel requires the precise SPDX identifier in all source files.
+The valid identifiers used in the kernel are described in the section
+`License identifiers`_ bottom of this file and have been retrieved from the
+official SPDX license list at https://spdx.org/licenses/
+
+License identifier syntax
+-------------------------
+
+The SPDX license identifier in kernel files shall be added at the first
+possible line in a file which can contain a comment.  For the majority
+of files this is the first line, except for scripts which require the
+'#!PATH_TO_INTERPRETER' in the first line.  For those scripts the SPDX
+identifier goes into the second line.
+
+The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment.  The comment
+style depends on the file type:
+
+::
+
+    C source:   // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
+    C header:   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
+    ASM:        /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
+    scripts:    # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
+
+If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
+appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used.
+
+An <SPDX License Expression> 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 SPDX short form license identifiers surrounded by "(", ")".
+
+License identifiers for licenses like [L]GPL with the 'or later' option
+are constructed by using a "+" for indicating the 'or later' option.
+
+::
+
+   // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+   // SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
+
+WITH should be used when there is a modifier to a license needed.
+For example, the linux kernel UAPI files use the expression:
+
+::
+
+    // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note)
+    // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note)
+
+Other examples using WITH exceptions found in the kernel are:
+
+::
+
+    (GPL-2.0 WITH mif-exception)
+    (GPL-2.0+ WITH GCC-exception-2.0)
+
+OR should be used if the file is dual licensed and only one license is
+to be selected.  For example, some dtsi files are available under dual
+licenses:
+
+::
+
+    // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause)
+
+Examples from the kernel for license expressions in dual licensed files:
+
+::
+
+    (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
+    (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+    (GPL-2.0 OR Apache-2.0)
+    (GPL-2.0 OR MPL-1.1)
+    ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT)
+    ((GPL-1.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause) OR OpenSSL)
+
+AND should be used if the file has multiple licenses whose terms all apply
+to use the file. For example, if code is inherited from another project
+and permission has been given to put it in the kernel, but the original
+license terms need to remain in effect:
+
+::
+
+    // SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT)
+
+Another example where both sets of license terms need to be
+adhered to is:
+
+::
+
+    (GPL-1.0+ AND LGPL-2.1+)
+
+License identifiers
+-------------------
+
+The licenses currently used, as well as the licenses for code added to the
+kernel can be broken down into:
+
+1) Preferred licenses:
+
+Whenever possible these licenses should be used as they are known to be
+fully compatible and widely used.  These licenses are available from the
+directory:
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/preferred/
+
+in the kernel source tree. The files in this directory contain
+
+ - the proper syntax of the SPDX License identifier
+ - the proper syntax for possible License options, e.g. 'or later'
+ - reference(s) to the original license text
+ - reference to the SPDX page
+ - the full license text
+
+The file names are identical to the SPDX license identifier which shall be
+used for the license in source files.
+
+Examples:
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
+
+	contains the GPL version 2 license text and the required references
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/preferred/MIT
+
+	contains the MIT license text and the required references
+
+File format examples:
+
+::
+
+   SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0  // GPLv2 only
+   SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ // GPLv2 or later
+   LICENSE-URL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-standalone.html
+   LICENSE-URL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/GPL-2.0
+   SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html
+
+   Full license text
+
+::
+
+   SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+   LICENSE-URL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT
+   SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
+
+   Full license text
+
+2) Not recommended licenses.
+
+These licenses should only be used for existing code or for importing
+code from a different project.  These licenses are available from the
+directory:
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/other/
+
+in the kernel source tree. The files in this directory contain:
+
+ - the proper syntax of the SPDX License identifier
+ - reference(s) to the original license text
+ - reference to the SPDX page
+ - the full license text
+
+license text, a reference to the origin and the SPDX page.  The file
+names are identical to the SPDX license identifier which shall be used
+for the license in source files.
+
+Examples:
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/other/ISC
+
+	contains the Internet Systems Consortium license text and the
+	required references
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/other/ZLib
+
+	contains the ZLIB license text and the required references
+
+File format example:
+
+::
+
+   SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC
+   LICENSE-URL:	http://www.isc.org/software/license
+   LICENSE-URL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ISC
+   SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html
+
+   Full license text
+
+3) Exceptions:
+
+Some licenses can be amended with exceptions which grant certain rights
+which the original license does not.  These exceptions are available
+from the directory:
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/exceptions/
+
+in the kernel source tree.  The files in this directory contain the full
+exception text, a reference to the origin and the SPDX page.  Further
+the file contains the SPDX identifier(s) of the license(s) to which the
+exception applies, so it can be verified that an exception is valid with
+the license to which the SPDX identifier expression refers.  The file
+names are identical to the SPDX license exception identifier which
+shall be used for the license in source files.
+
+Examples:
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note
+
+	contains the Linux syscall exception as documented in the COPYING
+	file of the Linux kernel, which is used for UAPI header files.
+	e.g. /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
+
+::
+
+   LICENSES/exceptions/GCC-exception-2.0
+
+	contains the GCC 'linking exception' which allows to link any
+	binary independent of its license against the compiled version of a
+	file marked with this exception. This is required for creating
+	runnable executables from source code which is not compatible with
+	the GPL.
+
+File format examples:
+
+::
+
+   SPDX-Exception-Identifier: Linux-syscall-note
+   LICENSE-URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/COPYING
+   SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-syscall-note.html
+   SPDX-LICENSES: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+, GPL-1.0+, LGPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0+, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-2.1+
+
+    Full exception text
+
+::
+
+   SPDX-Exception-Identifier: GCC-exception-2.0
+   LICENSE-URL:
+   SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GCC-exception-2.0.html
+   SPDX-LICENSES: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+
+
+    Full exception text
+
+SPDX license identifiers and exceptions must have a corresponding file in
+the LICENSING subdirectories. This is required to allow tool verification
+(e.g. checkpatch.pl) and to have the licenses ready to read and extract
+right from the source, which is recommended by various FOSS organizations.

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

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: LICENSES_Add_the_GPL_2.0_license.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 19661 bytes --]

Add the full text of the GPL 2.0 license to the kernel tree.  It was
copied directly from:

   https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText

Add the required tags for reference and tooling.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

---
 LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 |  342 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 342 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 LICENSES/GPL-2.0

--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
@@ -0,0 +1,342 @@
+SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0  // GPLv2 only
+SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ // GPLv2 or later
+LICENSE-URL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-standalone.html
+LICENSE-URL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/GPL-2.0
+SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html
+
+
+GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+Version 2, June 1991
+
+Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
+
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+Preamble
+
+The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
+share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
+intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to
+make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public
+License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to
+any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free
+Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public
+License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
+
+When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
+General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom
+to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you
+wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you
+can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that
+you know you can do these things.
+
+To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
+deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These
+restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
+distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
+For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
+for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
+must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you
+must show them these terms so they know their rights.
+
+We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
+offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute
+and/or modify the software.
+
+Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
+everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If
+the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
+recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
+problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
+reputations.
+
+Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We
+wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
+individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
+proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
+licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
+
+The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
+
+TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
+
+0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
+   notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under
+   the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers
+   to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means
+   either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is
+   to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either
+   verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
+   language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
+   the term "modification".)  Each licensee is addressed as "you".
+
+   Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+   covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running
+   the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is
+   covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
+   (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that
+   is true depends on what the Program does.
+
+1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code
+   as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
+   appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
+   disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
+   License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients
+   of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
+
+   You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
+   you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
+
+2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
+   thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
+   modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you
+   also meet all of these conditions:
+
+    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
+       that you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
+       whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
+       thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
+       under the terms of this License.
+
+    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
+       run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive
+       use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
+       including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is
+       no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that
+       users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and
+       telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if
+       the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such
+       an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to
+       print an announcement.)
+
+   These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
+   identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
+   can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+   themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+   sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
+   distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
+   the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
+   License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
+   whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+   Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
+   your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
+   exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
+   collective works based on the Program.
+
+   In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
+   with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
+   storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
+   scope of this License.
+
+3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
+   Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1
+   and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
+       code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
+       above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
+       to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
+       physically performing source distribution, a complete
+       machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
+       distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
+       customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
+       distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed
+       only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the
+       program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in
+       accord with Subsection b above.)
+
+       The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+       making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
+       code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
+       associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
+       control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as
+       a special exception, the source code distributed need not include
+       anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
+       form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
+       operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
+       itself accompanies the executable.
+
+       If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
+       access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
+       access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
+       distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
+       compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except
+   as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy,
+   modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
+   automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties
+   who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will
+   not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in
+   full compliance.
+
+5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
+   it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
+   the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
+   if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or
+   distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you
+   indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
+   conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works
+   based on it.
+
+6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+   Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+   original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
+   these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions
+   on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not
+   responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
+
+7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+   infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+   conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+   otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+   excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
+   so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
+   any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
+   distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would
+   not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
+   receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you
+   could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from
+   distribution of the Program.
+
+   If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+   any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+   apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+   circumstances.
+
+   It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+   patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+   such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+   integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented
+   by public license practices. Many people have made generous
+   contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that
+   system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to
+   the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute
+   software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that
+   choice.
+
+   This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be
+   a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain
+   countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
+   copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an
+   explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,
+   so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
+   excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if
+   written in the body of this License.
+
+9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
+   the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be
+   similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+   address new problems or concerns.
+
+   Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
+   specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
+   later version", you have the option of following the terms and
+   conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
+   the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version
+   number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the
+   Free Software Foundation.
+
+10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+    programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the
+    author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the
+    Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
+    sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the
+    two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free
+    software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+NO WARRANTY
+
+11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
+    FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
+    OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
+    PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER
+    EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
+    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE
+    ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH
+    YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL
+    NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
+
+12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
+    WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
+    REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
+    DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
+    DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM
+    (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED
+    INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF
+    THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR
+    OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
+
+If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free
+software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
+
+To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to
+attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the
+exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright"
+line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+    One line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.
+    Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
+
+    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+    under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
+    Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
+    option) any later version.
+
+    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+    WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+    General Public License for more details.
+
+    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
+    with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+    59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this when
+it starts in an interactive mode:
+
+    Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author Gnomovision
+    comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. This is
+    free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain
+    conditions; type `show c' for details.
+
+The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
+parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may be
+called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
+mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
+necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+    Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
+    `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James
+    Hacker.
+
+    signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989
+    Ty Coon, President of Vice
+
+This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
+proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
+consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
+library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public
+License instead of this License.

[patch 3/7] LICENSES: Add the GPL 1.0 license

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: LICENSES_Add_the_GPL_1.0_license.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 13542 bytes --]

Add the full text of the GPL 1.0 license to the kernel tree.  It was
copied directly from:

       https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-1.0.html#licenseText

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

---
 LICENSES/preferred/GPL-1.0 |  253 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 253 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 LICENSES/GPL-1.0

--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-1.0
@@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
+SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+
+LICENSE-URL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0-standalone.html
+LICENSE-URL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/GPL-1.0
+SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-1.0.html
+
+	    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+	     Version 1, February 1989
+
+ Copyright (C) 1989 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+                    675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
+ Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+ of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+			    Preamble
+
+  The license agreements of most software companies try to keep users
+at the mercy of those companies.  By contrast, our General Public
+License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
+software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.  The
+General Public License applies to the Free Software Foundation's
+software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it.
+You can use it for your programs, too.
+
+  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
+price.  Specifically, the General Public License is designed to make
+sure that you have the freedom to give away or sell copies of free
+software, that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
+that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free
+programs; and that you know you can do these things.
+
+  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
+anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
+These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
+distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
+  For example, if you distribute copies of a such a program, whether
+gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
+you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
+source code.  And you must tell them their rights.
+
+  We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
+(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
+distribute and/or modify the software.
+
+  Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
+that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
+software.  If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
+want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
+that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
+authors' reputations.
+
+  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.
+
+		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
+
+  0. This License Agreement applies to any program or other work which
+contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
+distributed under the terms of this General Public License.  The
+"Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based
+on the Program" means either the Program or any work containing the
+Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications.  Each
+licensee is addressed as "you".
+
+  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
+code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
+appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
+disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
+General Public License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any
+other recipients of the Program a copy of this General Public License
+along with the Program.  You may charge a fee for the physical act of
+transferring a copy.
+
+  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
+it, and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of Paragraph
+1 above, provided that you also do the following:
+
+    a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
+    you changed the files and the date of any change; and
+
+    b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that
+    in whole or in part contains the Program or any part thereof, either
+    with or without modifications, to be licensed at no charge to all
+    third parties under the terms of this General Public License (except
+    that you may choose to grant warranty protection to some or all
+    third parties, at your option).
+
+    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
+    run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use
+    in the simplest and most usual way, to print or display an
+    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice
+    that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a
+    warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these
+    conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this General
+    Public License.
+
+    d) You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
+    copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in
+    exchange for a fee.
+
+Mere aggregation of another independent work with the Program (or its
+derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring
+the other work under the scope of these terms.
+
+  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a portion or derivative of
+it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+    a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
+    Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,
+
+    b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
+    years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal charge
+    for the cost of distribution) a complete machine-readable copy of the
+    corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of
+    Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,
+
+    c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the
+    corresponding source code may be obtained.  (This alternative is
+    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
+    received the program in object code or executable form alone.)
+
+Source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
+modifications to it.  For an executable file, complete source code means
+all the source code for all modules it contains; but, as a special
+exception, it need not include source code for modules which are standard
+libraries that accompany the operating system on which the executable
+file runs, or for standard header files or definitions files that
+accompany that operating system.
+
+  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, distribute or transfer the
+Program except as expressly provided under this General Public License.
+Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, distribute or transfer
+the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights to use
+the Program under this License.  However, parties who have received
+copies, or rights to use copies, from you under this General Public
+License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties
+remain in full compliance.
+
+  5. By copying, distributing or modifying the Program (or any work based
+on the Program) you indicate your acceptance of this license to do so,
+and all its terms and conditions.
+
+  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
+licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these
+terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further restrictions on the
+recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+
+  7. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
+be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
+specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any
+later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
+either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
+Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
+the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+
+  8. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
+to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
+Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
+make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
+of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
+of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+			    NO WARRANTY
+
+  9. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
+FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT WHEN
+OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
+PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
+OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS
+TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE
+PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
+REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
+
+  10. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
+WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
+REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
+INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
+OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
+TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
+YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
+PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+		     END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+	Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
+
+  If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to humanity, the best way to achieve this is to make it
+free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these
+terms.
+
+  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest to
+attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey
+the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
+"copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
+    Copyright (C) 19yy  <name of author>
+
+    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+    the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option)
+    any later version.
+
+    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+    GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+    along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+    Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
+when it starts in an interactive mode:
+
+    Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) 19xx name of author
+    Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
+    This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
+    under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
+
+The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the
+appropriate parts of the General Public License.  Of course, the
+commands you use may be called something other than `show w' and `show
+c'; they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your
+program.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
+necessary.  Here a sample; alter the names:
+
+  Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the
+  program `Gnomovision' (a program to direct compilers to make passes
+  at assemblers) written by James Hacker.
+
+  <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989
+  Ty Coon, President of Vice
+
+That's all there is to it!

[patch 4/7] LICENSES: Add the BSD 2-clause "Simplified" license

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: LICENSES_Add_the_BSD_2-clause_Simplified_license.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2136 bytes --]

Add the full text of the BSD 2-clause "Simplified" license to the kernel
tree.  It was copied directly from:

   https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html#licenseText

Add the required tags for reference and tooling.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

---
 LICENSES/preferred/BSD-2-Clause |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 LICENSES/BSD-2-Clause

--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSES/preferred/BSD-2-Clause
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
+LICENSE-URL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
+SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html
+
+
+Copyright (c) <year> <owner> . All rights reserved.
+
+Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
+
+1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
+   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+
+2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
+   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
+   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
+
+THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
+AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
+IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
+ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
+LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
+CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
+SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
+INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
+CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
+ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

[patch 5/7] LICENSES: Add the BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: LICENSES_Add_the_BSD_3-clause_New_Revised_license.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2347 bytes --]

Add the full text of the BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License to the
kernel tree.  It was copied directly from:

  https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html#licenseText

Add the required tags for reference and tooling.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

---
 LICENSES/preferred/BSD-3-Clause |   32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 LICENSES/BSD-3-Clause

--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSES/preferred/BSD-3-Clause
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+LICENSE-URL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
+SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html
+
+
+Copyright (c) <year> <owner> . All rights reserved.
+
+Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
+
+1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
+   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+
+2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
+   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
+   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
+
+3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its
+   contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
+   software without specific prior written permission.
+
+THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
+AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
+IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
+ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
+LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
+CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
+SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
+INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
+CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
+ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

[patch 6/7] LICENSES: Add the MIT license

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: LICENSES_Add_the_MIT_license.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1823 bytes --]

Add the full text of the MIT license to the kernel tree.  It was copied
directly from:

  https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html#licenseText

Add the required tags for reference and tooling.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

---
 LICENSES/preferred/MIT |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 LICENSES/MIT

--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSES/preferred/MIT
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+LICENSE-URL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT
+SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
+
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
+copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
+to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
+the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
+and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
+Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
+all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
+FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
+DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

[patch 7/7] LICENSES: Add Linux syscall note exception

[Thomas Gleixner]

[-- Attachment #1: LICENSES--Add-Linux-syscall-note-exception.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1436 bytes --]

Copied from the Linux kernel COPYING file.

Add the required tags for reference and tooling.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>

---
 LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note |   19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+SPDX-Exception-Identifier: Linux-syscall-note
+LICENSE-URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/COPYING
+SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-syscall-note.html
+SPDX-LICENSES: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+, GPL-1.0+, LGPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0+, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-2.1+
+
+
+   NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
+ services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
+ of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
+ Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
+ Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
+ kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
+
+ Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
+ is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
+ v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
+
+			Linus Torvalds
+

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

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2017-11-12 at 20:18 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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/).
> 
> Thanks to Kate, Philippe and Greg for review and editing!
p[
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/license-rules.rst
[]
> +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
> +formatting, typos etc.  These "boiler plates" are hard to validate for
> +tools, which are used in the context of license compliance.

There is bad sentence construction here and it is a
little difficult to parse what is intended.

"These" should not be capitalized.

This SPDX info should also be place in the Documentation/process
content somewhere.

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

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-11-12 at 20:18 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 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/).
> > 
> > Thanks to Kate, Philippe and Greg for review and editing!
> p[
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/license-rules.rst
> []
> > +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
> > +formatting, typos etc.  These "boiler plates" are hard to validate for
> > +tools, which are used in the context of license compliance.
> 
> There is bad sentence construction here and it is a
> little difficult to parse what is intended.
> 
> "These" should not be capitalized.

Indeed.

> This SPDX info should also be place in the Documentation/process
> content somewhere.

Works for me.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [patch 0/7] LICENSES: Add documentation and initial License files

[Joe Perches]

Just fyi to all

kate@linuxfoundation.org is not a valid email address

If you reply to this, please change her email address
to: kstewart@linuxfoundation.org
---
<kate@linuxfoundation.org>: host ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.129.27] said:
    550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please
    try 550-5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or
    550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at 550 5.1.1
    https://support.google.com/mail/?p=NoSuchUser s89si79090ioi.86 - gsmtp (in
    reply to RCPT TO command)

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

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:18:22 +0100
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> 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/).

Some nits...somebody's gotta do it...

>  
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/license-rules.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
> +Linux kernel licensing rules
> +============================
> +
> +The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public
> +License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as published by the Free Software
> +Foundation, and provided in the COPYING file.  This documentation file is
> +not meant to replace the COPYING file, but provides a description of how
> +each source file should be annotated to make the licensing it is governed
> +under clear and unambiguous.
> +
> +The license in the COPYING file applies to the kernel source as a whole,
> +though individual source files can have a different license which is
> +required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0:
> +
> +::
> +
> +    GPL-1.0+  :  GNU General Public License v1.0 or later
> +    GPL-2.0+  :  GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
> +    LGPL-2.0  :  GNU Library General Public License v2 only
> +    LGPL-2.0+ :  GNU Library General Public License v2 or later
> +    LGPL-2.1  :  GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 only
> +    LGPL-2.1+ :  GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later
> +
> +Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license,
> +i.e. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a
> +permissive license like BSD, MIT etc.
> +
> +The Userspace API (UAPI) header files, which describe the interface of user
> +space programs to the kernel are a special case.  According to the note

comma after "kernel"

> +in the kernel COPYING file the syscall interface is a clear boundary,

comma after "file"

> +which does not extend the GPL requirements to any software which uses
> +them to communicate with the kernel.  Because the UAPI headers must be

which uses *it* (subject is "the syscall interface")

> +includable into any source files which create an executable running on
> +the Linux kernel, the exception must be documented by a special license
> +expression.
> +
> +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
> +formatting, typos etc.  These "boiler plates" are hard to validate for
> +tools, which are used in the context of license compliance.
> +
> +To avoid license inconsistencies and to help tooling it is required to

I'd grab the comma from after "tools" two lines up and put it after
"tooling" instead.

> +add a Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) license identifier to each
> +source file.  SPDX license identifiers are machine parsable and precise
> +shorthands for the license under which the content of the file is
> +contributed under.  SPDX license identifiers are managed by the SPDX

This is over-undered.  I'd delete the second 'under'.

> +Workgroup at the Linux Foundation and have been agreed on by partners
> +throughout the industry, tool vendors, and legal teams.  For further
> +information see https://spdx.org/
> +
> +The Linux kernel requires the precise SPDX identifier in all source files.
> +The valid identifiers used in the kernel are described in the section
> +`License identifiers`_ bottom of this file and have been retrieved from the
> +official SPDX license list at https://spdx.org/licenses/
> +
> +License identifier syntax
> +-------------------------
> +
> +The SPDX license identifier in kernel files shall be added at the first
> +possible line in a file which can contain a comment.  For the majority
> +of files this is the first line, except for scripts which require the
> +'#!PATH_TO_INTERPRETER' in the first line.  For those scripts the SPDX
> +identifier goes into the second line.
> +
> +The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment.  The comment
> +style depends on the file type:
> +
> +::
> +
> +    C source:   // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> +    C header:   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */

So I can't be the only person with nothing better to do than to wonder why
source and header files use a different comment syntax.  Maybe the document
could explain that?

> +    ASM:        /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
> +    scripts:    # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> +
> +If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
> +appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used.
> +
> +An <SPDX License Expression> 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 SPDX short form license identifiers surrounded by "(", ")".
> +
> +License identifiers for licenses like [L]GPL with the 'or later' option
> +are constructed by using a "+" for indicating the 'or later' option.
> +
> +::
> +
> +   // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> +   // SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> +
> +WITH should be used when there is a modifier to a license needed.
> +For example, the linux kernel UAPI files use the expression:
> +
> +::
> +
> +    // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note)
> +    // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note)
> +
> +Other examples using WITH exceptions found in the kernel are:
> +
> +::
> +
> +    (GPL-2.0 WITH mif-exception)
> +    (GPL-2.0+ WITH GCC-exception-2.0)
> +
> +OR should be used if the file is dual licensed and only one license is
> +to be selected.  For example, some dtsi files are available under dual
> +licenses:

It would be good to document the set of permissible WITH exceptions.  Or
people will surely get creative in making up new ones.

OK, I see that has been done, so amend that comment to suggest a line
saying that the set of exceptions is documented below.

Thanks,

jon

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

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:18:22 +0100
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > +    C source:   // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> > +    C header:   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
> 
> So I can't be the only person with nothing better to do than to wonder why
> source and header files use a different comment syntax.  Maybe the document
> could explain that?

Will do. The reason is that some build steps, one of them related to
generated .lds files fail with C++ style comments. Linus fixed the .lds
one, but there is at least an older ASM tool which doesn't like them.

> > +    ASM:        /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
> > +OR should be used if the file is dual licensed and only one license is
> > +to be selected.  For example, some dtsi files are available under dual
> > +licenses:
> 
> It would be good to document the set of permissible WITH exceptions.  Or
> people will surely get creative in making up new ones.
>
> 
> OK, I see that has been done, so amend that comment to suggest a line
> saying that the set of exceptions is documented below.

Will do. The other thing is, that the exception files have the applicable
licenses in it so something like checkpatch.pl can verify it.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [patch 0/7] LICENSES: Add documentation and initial License files

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, Joe Perches wrote:

> Just fyi to all
> 
> kate@linuxfoundation.org is not a valid email address
> 
> If you reply to this, please change her email address
> to: kstewart@linuxfoundation.org

My bad, I had this wrong address in the addressbook of my patch mail script.

Thanks,

	tglx

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

[Charlemagne Lasse]

Hi,

Looks like this superseeds my patches

- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10054727/
- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10054719/
- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10054721/
- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10054725/
- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10054723/


> +License identifier syntax
> +-------------------------
> +
> +The SPDX license identifier in kernel files shall be added at the first
> +possible line in a file which can contain a comment.  For the majority
> +of files this is the first line, except for scripts which require the
> +'#!PATH_TO_INTERPRETER' in the first line.  For those scripts the SPDX
> +identifier goes into the second line.
> +
> +The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment.  The comment
> +style depends on the file type:
> +
> +::
> +
> +    C source:   // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> +    C header:   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
> +    ASM:        /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
> +    scripts:    # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
> +
> +If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
> +appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used.

Most of the things sound good. But I really don't get the first-line
thing and the C++ single line comments in C sources.

First there are already tools [1] from the FSFE REUSE project [2] that
support it after the copyright header. For example, the REUSE example
project uses this style for cURL [3]. But is also looks quite out of
place in the source files.

Here what it looks like right now in the kernel:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
 * Copyright(c) 2015 EZchip Technologies.
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
 * under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License,
 * version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope it will be useful, but WITHOUT
 * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
 * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License for
 * more details.
 *
 * The full GNU General Public License is included in this distribution in
 * the file called "COPYING".
 */

The REUSE cURL way would look more like:

/*
 * Copyright(c) 2015 EZchip Technologies.
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
 * under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License,
 * version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope it will be useful, but WITHOUT
 * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
 * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License for
 * more details.
 *
 * License-Filename: LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
 * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 */

And to the C++ style comments in C-source files. Way wouldn't it
possible to use a common style in C source files an C header files?

C source:   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */
C header:   /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */

Thanks,
Charlemagne Lasse

[1] https://git.fsfe.org/reuse/reuse
[2] https://reuse.software/
[3] https://git.fsfe.org/jonas/curl/src/reuse-compliant/src/slist_wc.c

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

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:
> > +If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
> > +appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used.
> 
> Most of the things sound good. But I really don't get the first-line
> thing and the C++ single line comments in C sources.

That's been a decision from Linus and probably not going to change, even if
you argue in circles.

Thanks,

	tglx

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

[Charlemagne Lasse]

2017-11-13 13:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:
>> > +If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
>> > +appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used.
>>
>> Most of the things sound good. But I really don't get the first-line
>> thing and the C++ single line comments in C sources.
>
> That's been a decision from Linus and probably not going to change, even if
> you argue in circles.

I always thought that Linus is the person reponsible for unfriendly
responses. But ok, when it is not wanted to discuss anything then please
ignore me.

Thanks,
Charlemagne Lasse

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

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:

> 2017-11-13 13:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>:
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:
> >> > +If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
> >> > +appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used.
> >>
> >> Most of the things sound good. But I really don't get the first-line
> >> thing and the C++ single line comments in C sources.
> >
> > That's been a decision from Linus and probably not going to change, even if
> > you argue in circles.
> 
> I always thought that Linus is the person reponsible for unfriendly
> responses. But ok, when it is not wanted to discuss anything then please
> ignore me.

That was not meant unfriendly. I merily tried to make it clear that it's a
decision which I'm pretty sure that it won't be changed. Feel free to
discuss it with Linus.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [patch 0/7] LICENSES: Add documentation and initial License files

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> If you want to create your own scan data, the ScanCode tool can be found
> here:
>
>  https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit.git
>
> It's python based and simple to install and use. Philippe is willing to
> help if there are questions or issues.

I am on deck to help with any question or issue (except for timer and
spinlock questions) e.g. related to license and copyright detection.

Kernel contributor and maintainer requests are treated as priority.
You can contact me directly off list or through the ScanCode tracker.

As a side note, I am toying with an addon [1] that can within reason
remove the detected license boilerplate and replace it with an SPDX
identifier in one pass to help cleanup more of these.

And Thomas: Thank you for the kind words!

[1] https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/833-espedexify/src/scancode/plugin_espedexify.py

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

Re: [patch 0/7] LICENSES: Add documentation and initial License files

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 08:18:21PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Folks!
> 
> First of all I want to apologize for the suboptimal process which brought
> this initial SPDX annotation into the kernel. We surely should have posted
> exactly this patch series first, but we were too focused on the actual
> annotation and analysis work, which took place in the last 10 months. As is
> happens often with work which occupies one on the 'technical' level
> completely, documentation is the last thing to think of.

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for doing this, this addresses many of my concerns with the
SPDX license tagging.  For the series:

Acked-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>

As for the comment style, I'm sure that we'll eventually learn to use
the appropriate style for the file type, but I suspect it won't be
easy as it's not intuitive.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up

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

[Rob Herring]

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Add the full text of the GPL 2.0 license to the kernel tree.  It was
> copied directly from:
>
>    https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText
>
> Add the required tags for reference and tooling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
>
> ---
>  LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 |  342 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 342 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 LICENSES/GPL-2.0

Do we need 2 copies? Here and in COPYING?

Rob

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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:02:48PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > Add the full text of the GPL 2.0 license to the kernel tree.  It was
> > copied directly from:
> >
> >    https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText
> >
> > Add the required tags for reference and tooling.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
> >
> > ---
> >  LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 |  342 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 342 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 LICENSES/GPL-2.0
> 
> Do we need 2 copies? Here and in COPYING?

Let's worry about moving the COPYING one _after_ this patch series gets
merged :)

thanks,

greg k-h

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

[Jonas Oberg]

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 in which it appears, and
it would be beneficial to avoid a situation where a tool reading this
make the assumption the license text itself it under a particular
license. Essentially, let's avoid overloading if we can.

>From my reading, there are two intentions with the above reading:

 1) To give usage guidelines and signal that for any source file, adding
    this exact line would be a valid license identifier, and
 2) To make the license identifiers computer understandable such that
    tools can be updated to validate whether source code includes a
    license identifier which corresponds to one of the licenses in
    LICENSES/

I'd propose to not try to do both at the same time and would propose
a 'Valid-License-Identifier' tag to meet your second criteria, and
a 'Usage-Guidance' tag to meet your first one. The header would then
be:

Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
Usage-Guidance:
 To use this license in source code, you can use either of the following tags
 and values:
 .
 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0   // For GPLv2 only
 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+  // For GPLv2 or any later version


Best,

-- 
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 2/7] LICENSES: Add the GPL 2.0 license

[Thomas Gleixner]

Jonas,

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Jonas Oberg wrote:

> 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 in which it appears, and
> it would be beneficial to avoid a situation where a tool reading this
> make the assumption the license text itself it under a particular
> license. Essentially, let's avoid overloading if we can.

Makes sense

> >From my reading, there are two intentions with the above reading:
> 
>  1) To give usage guidelines and signal that for any source file, adding
>     this exact line would be a valid license identifier, and
>  2) To make the license identifiers computer understandable such that
>     tools can be updated to validate whether source code includes a
>     license identifier which corresponds to one of the licenses in
>     LICENSES/
> 
> I'd propose to not try to do both at the same time and would propose
> a 'Valid-License-Identifier' tag to meet your second criteria, and
> a 'Usage-Guidance' tag to meet your first one. The header would then
> be:
> 
> Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> Usage-Guidance:
>  To use this license in source code, you can use either of the following tags
>  and values:
>  .
>  SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0   // For GPLv2 only
>  SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+  // For GPLv2 or any later version

I can live with that.

Thanks for looking over this!

       tglx

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

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:18:22 +0100
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/license-rules.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
> +Linux kernel licensing rules
> +============================
> +
> +The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public
> +License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as published by the Free Software
> +Foundation, and provided in the COPYING file.  This documentation file is

One other thing that occurred to me is that documentation files, too,
are copyrightable and should have license identifiers.  So maybe the
documentation on these identifiers should set a good example :)  The RST
version would be:

	.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

I'll try to find some time to start fixing up Documentation/ in general.

jon

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

[Jonas Oberg]

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 up potential other issues, like the top level COPYING
file, or documentation :-)

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

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Jonas Oberg wrote:
> > 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 up potential other issues, like the top level COPYING
> file, or documentation :-)

The top level COPYING file is historic, in terms of computer age even
palaeontologic. We can't fix it :)

Thanks,

	tglx

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

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> wrote:
> 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 up potential other issues, like the top level COPYING
> file, or documentation :-)

I could not agree more... code first!
FWIW I scanned the whole docs with scancode as part of this exercise.
They are rather ... messy license-wise, but even though I got through
it eventually they also generally less critical license-wise IMHO.

You can see some details of these scans in [1] though they are not
100% up to date: I did not post every intermediate scans and review
there as things are moving at a fast pace.

There are probably more pressing things to fix such as discrepancies
between a MODULE_LICENSE and the licensing of a file when they do not
match.

Here [2] the top level comment is a plain GPL-2.0 "only" while the
MODULE_LICENSE  is a GPL-2.0+ "or later"  (based on the plain "GPL"
definition in module.h [3] and this is just  one of many examples of this
weirdness.

Or fix the non-standard redefinition of the MODULE_LICENSE macro as
DRIVER_LICENSE as in [2]  and found elsewhere with
grep -r . -e "DRIVER_LICENSE"

These break the otherwise nicely grepable MODULE_LICENSE macros
with this kind of warty redirection I stumbled upon while reviewing kernel
license scans:

#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
[...]
MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);

[1] https://github.com/pombredanne/linux-kernel-scans/
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/alpha/kernel/srm_env.c?h=v4.14#n13
[3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/module.h?h=v4.14#n174
[4] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.h?h=v4.14#n39
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 08:37:28AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> Or fix the non-standard redefinition of the MODULE_LICENSE macro as
> DRIVER_LICENSE as in [2]  and found elsewhere with
> grep -r . -e "DRIVER_LICENSE"
> 
> These break the otherwise nicely grepable MODULE_LICENSE macros
> with this kind of warty redirection I stumbled upon while reviewing kernel
> license scans:
> 
> #define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> [...]
> MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);

Yes, those should be cleaned up, there's only 11 instances of them,
should be simple enough to do.  I can knock up a patch series for
them...

thanks,

greg k-h

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

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 08:37:28AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>> Or fix the non-standard redefinition of the MODULE_LICENSE macro as
>> DRIVER_LICENSE as in [2]  and found elsewhere with
>> grep -r . -e "DRIVER_LICENSE"
>>
>> These break the otherwise nicely grepable MODULE_LICENSE macros
>> with this kind of warty redirection I stumbled upon while reviewing kernel
>> license scans:
>>
>> #define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
>> [...]
>> MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
>
> Yes, those should be cleaned up, there's only 11 instances of them,
> should be simple enough to do.  I can knock up a patch series for
> them...

That would be awesome and you are probably a million times faster than
me at that.

There are actually more like 29 locations with such an oddity around AFAIK.

Here is a better, more comprehensive grep:

egrep  "MODULE_LICENSE\([^\"]|DRIVER_LICENSE|DRV_LICENSE|MOD_LICENSE"
-r . | egrep -v
"module\.h|nand_ecc\.c|Documentation|scripts|az6007\.c|mt2063.c"

yielding these:

./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_perf.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_perf.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_tool.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_tool.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_pingpong.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_pingpong.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/ntb/ntb.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
./drivers/ntb/ntb.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/input/tablet/hanwang.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE  "GPL"
./drivers/input/tablet/hanwang.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/input/tablet/kbtab.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
./drivers/input/tablet/kbtab.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/input/tablet/acecad.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
./drivers/input/tablet/acecad.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/input/misc/keyspan_remote.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
./drivers/input/misc/keyspan_remote.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.h:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
./drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/net/usb/hso.c:#define MOD_LICENSE "GPL"
./drivers/net/usb/hso.c:MODULE_LICENSE(MOD_LICENSE);
./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_init.c:MODULE_LICENSE(CSIO_DRV_LICENSE);
./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_init.h:#define CSIO_DRV_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
./drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
./drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./drivers/watchdog/pcwd_usb.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
./drivers/watchdog/pcwd_usb.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
./include/linux/raid/pq.h:#define MODULE_LICENSE(licence)

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:53:01AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 08:37:28AM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> >> Or fix the non-standard redefinition of the MODULE_LICENSE macro as
> >> DRIVER_LICENSE as in [2]  and found elsewhere with
> >> grep -r . -e "DRIVER_LICENSE"
> >>
> >> These break the otherwise nicely grepable MODULE_LICENSE macros
> >> with this kind of warty redirection I stumbled upon while reviewing kernel
> >> license scans:
> >>
> >> #define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> >> [...]
> >> MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> >
> > Yes, those should be cleaned up, there's only 11 instances of them,
> > should be simple enough to do.  I can knock up a patch series for
> > them...
> 
> That would be awesome and you are probably a million times faster than
> me at that.
> 
> There are actually more like 29 locations with such an oddity around AFAIK.
> 
> Here is a better, more comprehensive grep:
> 
> egrep  "MODULE_LICENSE\([^\"]|DRIVER_LICENSE|DRV_LICENSE|MOD_LICENSE"
> -r . | egrep -v
> "module\.h|nand_ecc\.c|Documentation|scripts|az6007\.c|mt2063.c"
> 
> yielding these:
> 
> ./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_perf.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
> ./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_perf.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_tool.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
> ./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_tool.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_pingpong.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
> ./drivers/ntb/test/ntb_pingpong.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/ntb/ntb.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
> ./drivers/ntb/ntb.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/input/tablet/hanwang.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE  "GPL"
> ./drivers/input/tablet/hanwang.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/input/tablet/kbtab.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> ./drivers/input/tablet/kbtab.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/input/tablet/acecad.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> ./drivers/input/tablet/acecad.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/input/misc/keyspan_remote.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> ./drivers/input/misc/keyspan_remote.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.h:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> ./drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/net/usb/hso.c:#define MOD_LICENSE "GPL"
> ./drivers/net/usb/hso.c:MODULE_LICENSE(MOD_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_init.c:MODULE_LICENSE(CSIO_DRV_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_init.h:#define CSIO_DRV_LICENSE "Dual BSD/GPL"
> ./drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> ./drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./drivers/watchdog/pcwd_usb.c:#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> ./drivers/watchdog/pcwd_usb.c:MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> ./include/linux/raid/pq.h:#define MODULE_LICENSE(licence)

Thanks, I think I got all of these, but that last one should be left
alone, it's ok and for when the code is being built outside of the
kernel tree.

I'll send the patches out this afternoon.

greg k-h