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=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 C0B39C04AB3 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 21:23:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC942075E for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 21:23:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="rcOhG4Lj"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=lohutok.net header.i=@lohutok.net header.b="OlTNbe4W" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727335AbfE0VX0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2019 17:23:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:60171 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727148AbfE0VX0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2019 17:23:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A346523C; Mon, 27 May 2019 17:23:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from allison@lohutok.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=subject:to:cc :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=GstOkpyaQyXY K3T9MhvUZ7zeupY=; b=rcOhG4Ljv/JQ2Ml8NwYQ2ecWBbYZslmyHGTnofQts1hX t4rVRdIZCKY8rbqLOfrrqdO1nn0byzQbTsj/XfRGTcRQ1XYvCrs686xNoiNYf5Ij mumPgF4Ln7YSx7D5PUA3aGfVlYLzQiICDtWb5C7D42oYasCJHCLzjmyyNnRmZw8= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E11D6523A; Mon, 27 May 2019 17:23:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from allison@lohutok.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=lohutok.net; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2018-11.pbsmtp; bh=LGR+iH09GtV+ytOXvT9k0n/wCtvKdY8XGC7zyX+YY5Q=; b=OlTNbe4W9YBNsUS80zI6mWlf9RuKHWh2n+RLwCsZMmvCEJGqihytLhQtMrfM4dh0DBjRM+qAoq4vNaoyd1W+Bw8WieFWpWbBZfH0JJCoAyIE/bAiLGF2n9qIHwUFcx4axIF1evTyvujnCI9MuTh9u3s6+7V5KbcohVE6wi41TPQ= Received: from [10.0.0.75] (unknown [24.47.52.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84B8B65239; Mon, 27 May 2019 17:23:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from allison@lohutok.net) Subject: Re: Meta-question on GPL compliance of this activity To: Richard Fontana Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org References: <20190521210833.veltn74dcgic5zmw@ebb.org> <0995848C-11BE-47B1-86F9-F56D43541246@jilayne.com> <20190524052026.GA28229@kroah.com> From: Allison Randal Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 17:23:16 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A5066C02-80C5-11E9-B937-8D86F504CC47-44123303!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org On 5/24/19 9:07 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > Not to sidetrack discussion but I don't see how they're a barrier to > *true* compliance specifically for Linux. If you have the complete > corresponding source code for the Linux kernel, and you just assume > (as some of us do) it's licensed under GPLv2 and provide the source > code and chances are you'll be in compliance. And most noncompliant > Linux distributors are noncompliant because they aren't distributing > the source code (and thus they have nothing to run scanning tools on > or whatever). > > Nevertheless I see a more general (beyond the Linux kernel) benefit to > adoption of legal notices in source code that can more easily be > understood by tools, and GPL-licensed projects in particular pose a > challenge to changing practices around source code license notices. > Which is partly why I am interested in and helping out a bit with this > work. Sure, by "barrier" I didn't mean "impossible", just that it's more difficult to comply if you aren't sure what licenses apply, and your scanning tools are giving you garbled results. > Sounds like a good suggestion. Perhaps alternatively or in addition, a > good faith effort can be undertaken to attempt to get licensor (more > specifically, nominal-copyright-holder) consent for these changes. It > doesn't have to be perfect or rushed. Was this idea considered but > abandoned? Not long ago Thomas asked me about a number of source files > with Red Hat copyrights, such as the ones that said "GPL'd" which > seemed particularly to irk him :) It seems like at this point you are > all giving up on the idea of checking with nominal copyright holders > ... out of frustration or impatience I guess? I've seen enough projects waste years of human-hours on this, that it seems reasonable to me to limit this activity to the really questionable notices. Allison