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 8BBCAC46460 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 09:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6527021976 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 09:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726948AbfFDJOu (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:14:50 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:43387 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727114AbfFDJOu (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:14:50 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.110] ([95.118.47.44]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue107 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MS4WT-1h9enb225z-00TUQV; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 11:14:40 +0200 Subject: Re: [Batch 16 patch 16/25] treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - rule 241 To: Allison Randal , Greg KH , "Zavras, Alexios" Cc: "linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org" References: <20190602204441.312079455@linutronix.de> <20190602204654.454513226@linutronix.de> <27E3B830FA35C7429A77DAEEDEB734477E3FEB98@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20190603180500.GC19359@kroah.com> From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" Organization: metux IT consult Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 09:14:38 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:FHZSwL6zJX/Gqr8FDaZuAdsHb23ycUoIaBQaqv+GMkPt8+exFVs or1CqOtR+K9I8oE6iG5hJT/g1M9ZFPU9whnCirBq7s+1J0JJR4S4vYF8WRWAYeghRAsxQ2a Pi0O0dhfkG4r9K1e4NfuLzpj+/3sDhwGVj88jCwCxc0/RvdSrjTakxKZVqMfdXmA3jgm2V4 1AXZtG6tOVD5cphxHHfMg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:8d1ynJJaSJw=:YmuDeAXxk9bap3tnlIwA+h vOCyxfjfusWevIFjt/906vEZmnioIxC/fsPeokzALqK4eQhpwXWTKbSHDfpxx0ChQ4jZrT8ZU tuKUxMlRHoTfFVQ5WWpNEWK3olHPEPsijncH5Qcnopjw3TlA/OH0ivtzhGLmz2M1hGuq2L/rs EVfGHt4hvVRV4UzWnmOpgjSqHS2xBUZ3N7SWPw22KoqFJjkHVaY4zVt+C6+KmkKeIzw6E6ql2 L0g6ylWo6N0zExkfK35ULLb980499tqf0JcBjxZWL4oEFF8cuA4QounIfw7zCKeg+vZvbx+SL 9r5+2cDuhpvDEIm+NWiNu1Isp+HNItikE2A9CnJYKKt5GS7WJ7bzI4mPbCldWmSttQGDoq5uw 43KRZqUdgHWYelxRnCYkXywO0hA9SBBNkEXyFKGb+OK/Rs5tdIk2gjY2V3zArFKccsAg9AM3t c/kFT9HjXgcLWQuZVvH+HL85vDWkou/liwvduc0tNOZEotQbO1skBmVT8mDTfMsADqCJ+aMmB bGERuFDG1ZRenMS/WGdDt49ihpB0Taq90J/QRK3fQnr2L9D0K8izNyEoeopjk8U0HqWe/tCQE dBrVivwc54uCxNFFeKNeV0gkld6FvwiE9ByNWd8LZue2p4WNySTO6Iz+2D66Lno+xUij3O0yO tz1zTDd+6ZmEzRwS9zSPz1PDlOQ5Aeiwr1oh/tRjFPiSu0rBHWWwIrIBhtQ2PlN67eRtTLcLt IN0ffhodTtivVrd5ryUiTkgmqk4axumKCQjXq1JRagPMZKm7zOHLi8+nX18= Sender: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org On 03.06.19 18:28, Allison Randal wrote: > The pattern of an unversioned GPL with a reference to COPYING was under > discussion in item (3) of the thread "clarification on -only and > -or-later". We didn't reach a final conclusion on whether the > unversioned GPL (GPL-1.0-or-later) or COPYING (GPL-2.0-only) should > dominate, so we've been holding these for later review. Is unversioned GPL (whatever that *really* supposed to mean :o) a valid license here ? (or could it become one for old code ?) In that case, could we just state that in the spdx header and leave it aside, until somebody *really* needs to know it exactly ? --mtx -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287