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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 3AEF1C282CE for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:39:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CDC20879 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:39:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=jilayne.com header.i=@jilayne.com header.b="WmUIjaO7" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729950AbfEVQj1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 12:39:27 -0400 Received: from mx2-c1.supremebox.com ([198.23.53.234]:42567 "EHLO mx1.supremebox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729572AbfEVQj1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 12:39:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jilayne.com ; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/LU/OWIzahcKDp5JmaH5F6U5PCffXG63ve5ICJtT+wo=; b=WmUIjaO73cYpVmhmSmeGj1bp2g ULLQvMceZAjwxfzgkB5c7QSAkF36UEh+DuYLIc2slVG8rZc5Ijv9LKkqTVRdaaor296vnJ62KHAPE ZMIJx9dOvo+uT5iyL0Qx3xQt63Bne0VRQ+tD5BcjLC51wQtadlooUToOBPEJhIXNozh0=; Received: from [67.164.173.226] (helo=[10.0.0.176]) by mx1.supremebox.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hTUH0-0001z5-DW; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:39:26 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: [patch 18/25] treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - rule 43 From: J Lovejoy In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:39:25 -0600 Cc: Allison Randal , linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20190520170750.949430150@linutronix.de> <20190520170858.189153071@linutronix.de> <47151447-7297-13c4-a232-a0b567ab2886@lohutok.net> <6B434678-D956-4E9B-BDFA-A57C834621A9@jilayne.com> To: Thomas Gleixner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Sender-Ident-agJab5osgicCis: opensource@jilayne.com Sender: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org > On May 22, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner = wrote: >=20 > On Wed, 22 May 2019, J Lovejoy wrote: >>> On May 21, 2019, at 1:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner = wrote: >>>=20 >>> can you please have a look how to handle that GPL + BSD disclaimer >>> abomination SPDX wise? >>>=20 >>=20 >> Yes, I have started a new list for this special version of messiness, >> namely anything in these batches that you all are tagging as adding >> something =E2=80=9Cextra=E2=80=9D to the standard GPL license notice. = I=E2=80=99m not going to >> start bringing this to SPDX until we have a more complete list - that = way >> we know how many variations there are, etc. >=20 >> If/when we do reach out to copyright holders in these cases, I think = it=E2=80=99d >> be helpful to specifically ask them if they could remove the extra = text >> and confirm that the license is just plain old GPL-2.0-only or >> GPL-2.0-or-later. =46rom Richard=E2=80=99s earlier comments, = Philippe=E2=80=99s bit of >> research, and the copyright years in the notices from the actual = files - >> it sounds like this additional-warranty thing was in vogue a long = time go >> (and hopefully not something people think they need to do today!) - = so, >> trying to clean it up where possible would be ideal. >=20 > You wish. The bulk is indeed from around 2000m but the cargo cult > disclaimer in drivers/scsi/usf/ was newly added 7 years ago and 2 = years ago > a new file was added with the same crap copied. That kind of stuff is = still > proliferated for whatever reasons. >=20 *sigh* yeah, I just noticed something like that as well. So much for = wishes ;) > Now coming back to the issue with disclaimers in general. We need a = way to > deal with it as there are at least two files where there is no trace = of the > company anymore. Plus GPLV3 (not relevant for the kernel, but for = SPDX) > explicitely says that you can add magic disclaimers. And of course = people > will do so. >=20 > While walking the dogs I thought more about this. >=20 > 1) The random disclaimer (new or old) is not necessarily forming a = new > license as long as the GPL (version) reference is unambiguous. >=20 > It's an (for GPLv2 tolerated and for GPLv3 documented) add on. >=20 > 2) With a very quick scan (not complete and accurate) I found more = than > 20 variants of disclaimers bolted on a GPLv2 = reference/boilerplate. > I fear there are more. >=20 > So it's pretty unrealistic to create 20+ disclaimer IDs or 20+ new = license > IDs for those and either of these things would just help to = proliferate > that nonsense and create yet another mess in the SPDX realm. >=20 > I rather suggest to do the following: >=20 > 1) Create a SPDX id 'CUSTOM_DISCLAIMER' and make the license = identifier: >=20 > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later AND CUSTOM_DISCLAIMER >=20 > 2) Remove the GPL2.0 reference/boilerplate but keep the diclaimer in = the > comment >=20 > 3) Wrap the disclaimer into >=20 > DISCLAIMER_BEGIN >=20 > Random made up lawyerese >=20 > DISCLAIMER_END >=20 > That gives us the following useful properties: >=20 > 1) Avoid to go through the tedious process of creating disclaimer = IDs > or new licenses and go through all the instances of SPDX/OSI and > whatever. >=20 > 2) Allows to proceed with the cleanup >=20 > 3) Precicely marks the custom disclaimer for compliance tools. = Even a > halfways trivial awk script can extract them that way. >=20 > We still can go after the copyright holders who added that mess at the = same > time, but we do not depend on their willingness, availability ... >=20 > Thoughts? That=E2=80=99s an interesting idea=E2=80=A6=20 I also am not sure there isn=E2=80=99t another option - once I have = these variants of disclaimers collected, I=E2=80=99m wondering about = doing a comparison to the actual disclaimer in GPL - if the variant = doesn=E2=80=99t substantially change/add to what is there, then it may = not be an issue to remove them as was originally planned. Need a bit = more legal analysis there, I think. =20 In the meantime, I=E2=80=99ll raise the general observation/issue of = adding disclaimers on the SPDX legal list - more lawyers there, so might = be good to get some other people thinking about the general question. And sorry if I seem to be treating this one as not urgent - I=E2=80=99ve = got the list of files that Kate gave me to work through. And this = additional-disclaimer issue is just adding on to the back of that list = :) Thanks and walking the dogs seems too be a good activity - keep it up! =20= ;) Thanks Thomas for all your work on this generally - if I haven=E2=80=99t = said that recently. Jilayne >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > tglx