From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754162AbdLHP35 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:29:57 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:44668 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753760AbdLHP3y (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:29:54 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMah5efXIUjMiVhPuM/RppvHBYA4gEvCDgENBM6HVfmn7H+p4D5g3TgX3uVYjRMbS1FGROFcnUgXbAE0ApqWR0M= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171205065003.GB7782@osiris> References: <20171204211927.673291734@linutronix.de> <20171204212120.484179273@linutronix.de> <20171205065003.GB7782@osiris> From: Philippe Ombredanne Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 16:29:12 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses To: Heiko Carstens , Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Jonathan Corbet , Kate Stewart , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Christoph Hellwig , Russell King , Rob Herring , Jonas Oberg , Joe Perches , xfs , Charlemagne Lasse , Carmen Bianca Bakker Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> +3. Syntax: >> + >> + A 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 "(", ")". > > Here it is stated that SPDX identifiers using the keyword WITH must be > surrounded by braces. Heiko: Darn! you have eagle eyes! Good catch. Thanks you++ Thomas: The parens are not required in SPDX license identifiers and they only (weakly) make sense when using expressions with OR and AND and not for WITH expressions (which is a mouthful... don't we all love a bit of boolean chat?). Therefore I suggest to update the text above this way: A is either an SPDX short form license identifier found on the SPDX License List, or the combination of two SPDX short form license identifiers separated by "WITH" when a license exception applies. When multiple licenses apply, an expression consists of keywords "AND", "OR" separating sub-expressions and surrounded by "(", ")" . >> + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) >> + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) > > Just like this example. Thomas, this should become: // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note >> + File format examples:: >> + >> + SPDX-Exception-Identifier: Linux-syscall-note >> + 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+ >> + Usage-Guidance: >> + This exception is used together with one of the above SPDX-Licenses >> + to mark user-space API (uapi) header files so they can be included >> + into non GPL compliant user-space application code. >> + To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the >> + identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag: >> + SPDX-License-Identifier: WITH Linux-syscall-note > > But here it comes without braces. It is correct and therefore no changes are needed here with the proposed updates from above >> + Exception-Text: >> + Full exception text >> + >> + :: >> + >> + SPDX-Exception-Identifier: GCC-exception-2.0 >> + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GCC-exception-2.0.html >> + SPDX-Licenses: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+ >> + Usage-Guidance: >> + The "GCC Runtime Library exception 2.0" is used together with one >> + of the above SPDX-Licenses for code imported from the GCC runtime >> + library. >> + To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the >> + identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag: >> + SPDX-License-Identifier: WITH GCC-exception-2.0 > > Here as well. > > The whole kernel now got SPDX-License-Identifiers that look like this: > > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note > > So this looks inconsistent to me, or did I miss something? You did not miss anything, and you spotted this right on. The SPDX-License-Identifier are correct, only the docs needs minor fixing. Thanks again! -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne