From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F315BC433F5 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 07:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235031AbiEJHiz (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2022 03:38:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51190 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240996AbiEJH0n (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2022 03:26:43 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B680532D3; Tue, 10 May 2022 00:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id C5A6D68AFE; Tue, 10 May 2022 09:22:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 09:22:43 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: tytso Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SPDX tag and top of file comment cleanups for the loop driver Message-ID: <20220510072243.GB11929@lst.de> References: <20220419063303.583106-1-hch@lst.de> <20220503201334.GA7325@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Jens, are the comments from Ted here enough to apply the series? Or do we need a formal Acked-by to be on the safe side? On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 02:35:59PM -0700, tytso wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 10:13:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 04:06:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > Ted, does the SPDX tag match your original licensing decision back then, > > > > or do we need to correct it? Does the auto-converted tag on the loop.h > > > > SPDX header (GPL1.0 or later with syscall exception) make sense, or > > > > should that have been GPL2 only with syscall exception? > > > > > > I think you've removed the loop.h in the patch series, so it shouldn't > > > matter what the tag would be for loop.h, right? In any case, GPLv2 > > > only was certainly the intent at the time. > > > > Well, there were two loop.h files - drivers/block/loop.h gets removed > > in this series, but include/uapi/linux/loop.h stays. > > Ah, thanks for the clarification. Yes, GPLv2 with the syscall > extension is what would be appropriate for include/uapi/linux/loop.h. > > - Ted ---end quoted text---