From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170A1C282DD for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 21:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B211C217D4 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 21:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729961AbfEVVaD convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 17:30:03 -0400 Received: from mail.fsf.org ([209.51.188.13]:51201 "EHLO mail.fsf.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729980AbfEVV3n (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 17:29:43 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1156 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 22 May 2019 17:29:42 EDT Received: from pubnet.fsf.org ([74.94.156.218]:42158 helo=localhost) by mail.fsf.org with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1hTYVE-0002hT-Qm for linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 22 May 2019 17:10:24 -0400 Received: from johnsu01 by localhost with local (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1hTYVE-0003vb-Ij for linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 22 May 2019 17:10:24 -0400 From: John Sullivan To: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Meta-question on GPL compliance of this activity References: <20190521210833.veltn74dcgic5zmw@ebb.org> <0995848C-11BE-47B1-86F9-F56D43541246@jilayne.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 17:10:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0995848C-11BE-47B1-86F9-F56D43541246@jilayne.com> (J. Lovejoy's message of "Wed, 22 May 2019 10:14:00 -0600") Message-ID: <871s0qyz3z.fsf@wjsullivan.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-detected-operating-system: by mail.fsf.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] Sender: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org J Lovejoy writes: > Richard, > > As you raised this concern and yet I’m noticing you continue to review > the patches and sign off, am I correct to assume that you don’t think > this is a big concern? > I was late to subscribe and am just catching up on the conversation here, so apologies if I missed earlier explanation, but I remember discussing this issue a while back on either -legal or -general (I'll look when I have a few more moments). On https://spdx.org/ids-how it currently says: > When a license defines a recommended notice to attach to files under > that license (sometimes called a "standard header"), the SPDX project > recommends that the standard header be included in the files, in > addition to an SPDX ID. > Additionally, when a file already contains a standard header or other > license notice, the SPDX project recommends that those existing notices > should not be removed. The SPDX ID is recommended to be used to > supplement, not replace, existing notices in files. > Like copyright notices, existing license texts and notices should be > retained, not replaced ‐ especially a third party's license notices. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B https://status.fsf.org/johns | https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at .