From: Kate Stewart <email@example.com> To: Joe Perches <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Rob Herring <email@example.com>, Igor Stoppa <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Andrew Morton <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, Andy Whitcroft <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <email@example.com>, Thomas Gleixner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Philippe Ombredanne <email@example.com>, Jonathan Corbet <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch.pl: Add SPDX license tag check Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:18:02 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAG_66ZT6R2Ki3AnH6RWRXpd8d64NDR2y-0BwyqJRpQD4hD01oQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2910 bytes --] On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Joe Perches <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 12:27 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Igor Stoppa <email@example.com> > wrote: > > > On 02/02/18 17:40, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > Add SPDX license tag check based on the rules defined in > > > > > > Shouldn't it also check that the license is compatible? > > > > > > > Perhaps we shouldn't try to script legal advice. > > True. > > I believe what was meant was that the > entry was a valid SPDX License entry > that already exists as a specific file > in the LICENSES/ path. > > So that entry must be some combination of: > > $ git ls-files LICENSES/ | cut -f3- -d'/' | sort > BSD-2-Clause > BSD-3-Clause > BSD-3-Clause-Clear > GPL-1.0 > GPL-2.0 > LGPL-2.0 > LGPL-2.1 > Linux-syscall-note > MIT > MPL-1.1 > > From my perspective, it'd be better if the > various + uses had their own individual > license files in the LICENSES/ path. > At the end of december, the SPDX license list was rev'd to Version: 3.0 28 December 2017. At the request of FSF, the GNU license family would not use the "+" notation, and would bias towards using "-only" and "-or-later", explicitly. So adding both variants to the LICENSES/ path aligns with this forward direction. > Right now, there are many missing licenses > that are already used by various existing > SPDX-License-Identifier: entries. > > > APACHE-2.0 > BSD > CDDL > CDDL-1.0 > ISC > GPL-1.0+ > GPL-2.0+ > LGPL-2.1+ > OpenSSL > > There are odd entries like: > > GPL-2.0-only > This is the new way to represent GPLv2 only, as described above. While the GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ notation is still valid, it is deprecated in the latest version, so transitioning existing over time will probably be needed. So I think the list of licenses to be added to LICENSES/ path is: APACHE-2.0 BSD CDDL CDDL-1.0 ISC GPL-1.0-only GPL-1.0-or-later (note: actually same contents as one GPL-1.0-only) GPL-2.0-only GPL-2.0-or-later (same contents as GPL-2.0-only) LGPL-2.0-only LGPL-2.0-or-later (same contents as LGPL-2.0-only) LGPL-2.1-only LGPL-2.1-or-later (same contents as LGPL-2.1-only) OpenSSL Having files with the same contents, but different names is irritating, but I can't see a another way of complying with REUSE guidelines. Any better suggestions? > Parentheses around AND/OR aren't consistent. > The SPDX specification has an appendix that calls for "(",")" around every license expresssion. After discussion with some developers it was decided to be ok to relax that, and only add them when they were essential to clarify the logic. The next rev of the SPDX specification will have this clarified as well. I think we caught most of the changes in the kernel documentation patches for describing this, but if you have specific cases to be reviewed, happy to have a look. Thanks, Kate  https://spdx.org/licenses/ [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4617 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-02 20:18 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-02-02 15:40 Rob Herring 2018-02-02 15:49 ` Igor Stoppa 2018-02-02 16:12 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2018-02-02 16:17 ` Jonathan Corbet 2018-02-02 18:27 ` Rob Herring 2018-02-02 19:06 ` Joe Perches 2018-02-02 20:18 ` Kate Stewart [this message] 2018-02-02 20:26 ` Kate Stewart 2018-02-02 20:55 ` Joe Perches 2018-02-08 14:41 ` Philippe Ombredanne 2018-02-02 20:57 ` Rob Herring 2018-02-02 21:10 ` Joe Perches 2018-02-03 13:41 ` Igor Stoppa 2018-02-08 14:44 ` Philippe Ombredanne 2018-02-08 14:35 ` Philippe Ombredanne 2018-02-08 17:24 ` Joe Perches 2018-02-08 18:09 ` Philippe Ombredanne 2018-02-02 21:18 ` Joe Perches 2018-02-09 0:35 ` Joe Perches 2018-02-09 5:58 ` Philippe Ombredanne
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CAG_66ZT6R2Ki3AnH6RWRXpd8d64NDR2y-0BwyqJRpQD4hD01oQ@mail.gmail.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch.pl: Add SPDX license tag check' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.