[PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Josh Triplett]

Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.

Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
---

Inspired by Greg's standard response to omit the paragraph "unless you
want to track the movements of the FSF's office for the next 40 years."

 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 2ee9eb7..2d7cc45 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1859,6 +1859,16 @@ sub process {
 			$rpt_cleaners = 1;
 		}
 
+# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
+		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ ||
+		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
+		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
+		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
+			my $herevet = "$here\n" . cat_vet($rawline) . "\n";
+			ERROR("FSF_MAILING_ADDRESS",
+			      "Do not include the paragraph about writing to the Free Software Foundation's mailing address from the sample GPL notice. The FSF has changed addresses in the past, and may do so again. Linux already includes a copy of the GPL.\n" . $herevet)
+		}
+
 # check for Kconfig help text having a real description
 # Only applies when adding the entry originally, after that we do not have
 # sufficient context to determine whether it is indeed long enough.
-- 
1.8.4.rc3

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
[]
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -1859,6 +1859,16 @@ sub process {
>  			$rpt_cleaners = 1;
>  		}
>  
> +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ ||

There are over 9,000 of these in the tree.

> +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||

Over 7,000

> +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||

Over 3,500

> +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {

Over 1,500

> +			my $herevet = "$here\n" . cat_vet($rawline) . "\n";
> +			ERROR("FSF_MAILING_ADDRESS",
> +			      "Do not include the paragraph about writing to the Free Software Foundation's mailing address from the sample GPL notice. The FSF has changed addresses in the past, and may do so again. Linux already includes a copy of the GPL.\n" . $herevet)

Is this really a useful ERROR condition?
Maybe a CHK --strict test or a warning instead?

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Josh Triplett]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> []
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -1859,6 +1859,16 @@ sub process {
> >  			$rpt_cleaners = 1;
> >  		}
> >  
> > +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> > +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ ||
> 
> There are over 9,000 of these in the tree.
> 
> > +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
> 
> Over 7,000
> 
> > +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
> 
> Over 3,500
> 
> > +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
> 
> Over 1,500

And there shouldn't be any more added.  (Also, case in point, note that
the FSF is no longer at "59 Temple Place".)

> > +			my $herevet = "$here\n" . cat_vet($rawline) . "\n";
> > +			ERROR("FSF_MAILING_ADDRESS",
> > +			      "Do not include the paragraph about writing to the Free Software Foundation's mailing address from the sample GPL notice. The FSF has changed addresses in the past, and may do so again. Linux already includes a copy of the GPL.\n" . $herevet)
> 
> Is this really a useful ERROR condition?
> Maybe a CHK --strict test or a warning instead?

How about making it a hard ERROR in patch mode, making "59 Temple Place"
an error in any mode, and making the other lines only warnings in file
mode?

Note that I made it an error because for many maintainers it's an
automatic patch rejection.

- Josh Triplett

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> []
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -1859,6 +1859,16 @@ sub process {
> >  			$rpt_cleaners = 1;
> >  		}
> >  
> > +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> > +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ ||
> 
> There are over 9,000 of these in the tree.
> 
> > +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
> 
> Over 7,000
> 
> > +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
> 
> Over 3,500
> 
> > +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
> 
> Over 1,500

Then we should remove them all.  I know some FSF members have tried to
do a sweep of the kernel tree at times to at least get rid of the old
physical address, but it looks like that didn't work very well.

I don't want to see this get worse over time, Josh, thanks for doing
this checkpatch patch.

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 23:27 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > []
> > > +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> > > +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ || 
> > There are over 9,000 of these in the tree.
> > > +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
> > Over 7,000
> > > +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
> > Over 3,500
> > > +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
> > Over 1,500
> 
> Then we should remove them all.
[]
> I don't want to see this get worse over time, Josh, thanks for doing
> this checkpatch patch.

What about the warranty disclaimer?

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:01:52AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 23:27 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > []
> > > > +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> > > > +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ || 
> > > There are over 9,000 of these in the tree.
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
> > > Over 7,000
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
> > > Over 3,500
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
> > > Over 1,500
> > 
> > Then we should remove them all.
> []
> > I don't want to see this get worse over time, Josh, thanks for doing
> > this checkpatch patch.
> 
> What about the warranty disclaimer?
> 
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> GNU General Public License for more details.

As an individual file is not the sum of the "program", I would argue
that it is not needed, but some companies like to feel better by adding
it.  So I really don't mind either way, as it would involve arguing with
lawyers about this type of thing, and I do enough of that already that I
don't go out of my way to do it more...

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:05:57AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> As an individual file is not the sum of the "program", I would argue
> that it is not needed, but some companies like to feel better by
> adding it. So I really don't mind either way, as it would involve
> arguing with lawyers about this type of thing, and I do enough of that
> already that I don't go out of my way to do it more...

What about a short sentence pointing at 'COPYING' instead?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:05:57AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > As an individual file is not the sum of the "program", I would argue
> > that it is not needed, but some companies like to feel better by
> > adding it. So I really don't mind either way, as it would involve
> > arguing with lawyers about this type of thing, and I do enough of that
> > already that I don't go out of my way to do it more...
> 
> What about a short sentence pointing at 'COPYING' instead?

Why?  What would that do?

Listen, all we really need is a short one or two line "this file is
released under the FOO license" in the file.  The SPDX project has the
shortend tags that can be used for it, and someone should be marking up
the whole kernel with them soon, which will be good.

Otherwise, it's up to the contributor, what they want to have in the
file.  But wrong addresses isn't ok, I'm sure we can all agree about
that.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 06:44:04AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:05:57AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > As an individual file is not the sum of the "program", I would argue
> > > that it is not needed, but some companies like to feel better by
> > > adding it. So I really don't mind either way, as it would involve
> > > arguing with lawyers about this type of thing, and I do enough of that
> > > already that I don't go out of my way to do it more...
> > 
> > What about a short sentence pointing at 'COPYING' instead?
> 
> Why?  What would that do?

Save us the short one or two lines "this file is ..."

> Listen, all we really need is a short one or two line "this file is
> released under the FOO license" in the file.  The SPDX project has the

All I'm suggesting is that it might be even simpler to add

"See COPYING in the kernel source repository for the license of this file."

or a similar text as COPYING contains the full text of the license.
Basically a pointer to it.

This has the added advantage to your short line that it points to the
exact license text and lawyers are happy.

<snip stuff we agree about anyway>

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:55:07PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 06:44:04AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:05:57AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > As an individual file is not the sum of the "program", I would argue
> > > > that it is not needed, but some companies like to feel better by
> > > > adding it. So I really don't mind either way, as it would involve
> > > > arguing with lawyers about this type of thing, and I do enough of that
> > > > already that I don't go out of my way to do it more...
> > > 
> > > What about a short sentence pointing at 'COPYING' instead?
> > 
> > Why?  What would that do?
> 
> Save us the short one or two lines "this file is ..."
> 
> > Listen, all we really need is a short one or two line "this file is
> > released under the FOO license" in the file.  The SPDX project has the
> 
> All I'm suggesting is that it might be even simpler to add
> 
> "See COPYING in the kernel source repository for the license of this file."
> 
> or a similar text as COPYING contains the full text of the license.
> Basically a pointer to it.

You can do that, but I know a whole lot of lawyers who will not like
that, as you aren't being explicit about what the license of the file
is, and relying on something else.

Remember, Linux kernel source files are licensed with all sorts of
different licenses, all of which are compatable and default to GPL when
used as a whole, but can be different on their own.

> This has the added advantage to your short line that it points to the
> exact license text and lawyers are happy.

Lawyers, just like kernel developers, are never happy, it's not in their
nature...

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Rob Landley]

On 10/06/2013 02:01:52 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 23:27 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate  
> paragraph
> > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL,  
> since the
> > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > []
> > > > +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> > > > +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a  
> copy/ ||
> > > There are over 9,000 of these in the tree.
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
> > > Over 7,000
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
> > > Over 3,500
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
> > > Over 1,500
> >
> > Then we should remove them all.
> []
> > I don't want to see this get worse over time, Josh, thanks for doing
> > this checkpatch patch.
> 
> What about the warranty disclaimer?
> 
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> GNU General Public License for more details.

It's a historical artifact with little if any legal meaning, but  
lawyers love ass-covering so they'll never tell you to remove a  
raincoat just beacause you live in a desert?

A) It's still in the top level license file (and if you're using a  
distro that has its own collective boilerplate).

If having it in the program's license file isn't enough, why would  
having it at the top of some files help? (Would having it block copied  
before every single function be enough? How about between every line of  
code? THIS line has no warantee. THIS line has no warantee either.)

B) If you have deep enough pockets to be a target they'll go after you  
with a spurious patent suit, not a spurious liability suit.

C) Does your blog have a liability disclaimer? When you visit a website  
like google.com, does it present you with a liability disclaimer on  
each page? (You can navigate to site terms if you try hard enough, but  
"oh no please don't sue us for this thing you never gave us any money  
for and volunteered to use in the first place" is not the first thing  
that comes to mind.)

D) Please show me the high profile lawsuit that made people start doing  
this. We started signed-off-by after SCO filed suit, where's the suit  
that made people do this? I just pulled my copy of Lawrence Graham's  
"Legal Battles that Shaped the Computer Industry" off the shelf and  
neither "Warantee" nor "Disclaimer" are listed in the index.

As far as I can tell current usage is one of those anklets that keep  
sharks away on dry land. ("But there are no sharks around here." "See,  
it's working!" Complete security blanket.)

ORIGINAL usage seems to have been an attempt at coming up with more  
legal boilerplate to look big in the early 80's back before the Apple  
vs Franklin decision extended copyright to cover binaries in 1983. When  
I got a copy of Zork for my commodore 64 in 1982 of course Infocom had  
a card in the box full of big words, saber rattling with meaningless  
legal boilerplate to scare people into "don't copy that floppy" when it  
wasn't actually illegal to do so yet. (This evolved into the  
"shrinkwrap license" nonsense a few years later; by breaking the  
shrinkwrap you agree to the license in the box which you can't read  
without breaking the shrinkwrap, oh yeah THAT instance of "informed  
consent" will hold up in court. Yet software manufacturers did it  
widely for many years before the DMCA made it even sort of greyish.  
Impressive looking legal documents that would never hold up in court  
are as old as the hills...)

No lawyer will ever tell you _not_ to gratuitously cover your ass,  
especially if everybody _else_ is carrying crosses to ward off vampires  
and fully prepared for the coming zombie apocalypse. But where is an  
example of this ever having been a real threat on the level of spurious  
patent suits?

Where are the lawsuits against qmail, whose author famously refused to  
license his code at all for over a decade, and when he did get explicit  
about it he didn't bother with a warantee disclaimer:

   http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html

Or how about libtomcrypt (at the heart of things like the dropbear ssh  
implementation) which has a dual license:

   https://github.com/libtom/libtomcrypt/blob/master/LICENSE

There are hundreds of such packages out there, and we happily use 'em.  
Anyone come up with a warantee lawsuit against someone without a  
disclaimer? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

(tl;dr I strongly suspect _one_ Linus Blanket is enough for the tree.  
The one in COPYING.)

Rob

(I'd love to be corrected on this, I've been looking for years. Nobody  
knows, they just keep doing it "just in case". Things like  
http://www.contractstandards.com/contract-structure/representations-and-warranties/software-warranty  
say "Under common law an implied warranty is applied to the sale of  
real property and goods." but there's no _sale_ of a free download, and  
even that goes on in the next paragraph to say nobody ever does this in  
software, I.E. it's NOT common there. And don't get me started on the  
places that can't distinguish between a contract and a license...)

(Oh, did I mention that the lawyers at the Software Freedom Law Center  
were of the opinion that changing the legal boilerplate at the top of  
the files AT ALL, even to correct inaccurate information, was a  
violation of GPLv2? See "the last straw" in  
https://lwn.net/Articles/202120/ except, like patents, it's apparently  
ok to do if you don't know about it so don't read it! Sigh...)

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:18:04PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> You can do that, but I know a whole lot of lawyers who will not like
> that, as you aren't being explicit about what the license of the file
> is, and relying on something else.

I was afraid that some legal-profession-mumbo-jumbo would require the
explicit stating of the license in *every* goddam file. Oh well...

> Remember, Linux kernel source files are licensed with all sorts of
> different licenses, all of which are compatable and default to GPL
> when used as a whole, but can be different on their own.

Right.

> Lawyers, just like kernel developers, are never happy, it's not in
> their nature...

Why am I not surprised?! :-)

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Josh Triplett]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:01:52AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 23:27 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > []
> > > > +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> > > > +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ || 
> > > There are over 9,000 of these in the tree.
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
> > > Over 7,000
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
> > > Over 3,500
> > > > +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
> > > Over 1,500
> > 
> > Then we should remove them all.
> []
> > I don't want to see this get worse over time, Josh, thanks for doing
> > this checkpatch patch.
> 
> What about the warranty disclaimer?
> 
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> GNU General Public License for more details.

That one doesn't cause any logistical problems the way the FSF's mailing
address does, and legal departments may be uncomfortable omitting it, so
I don't think it makes sense for checkpatch to flag it.

- Josh Triplett

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Josh Triplett]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:27:39PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > []
> > > @@ -1859,6 +1859,16 @@ sub process {
> > >  			$rpt_cleaners = 1;
> > >  		}
> > >  
> > > +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> > > +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ ||
> > 
> > There are over 9,000 of these in the tree.
> > 
> > > +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
> > 
> > Over 7,000
> > 
> > > +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
> > 
> > Over 3,500
> > 
> > > +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
> > 
> > Over 1,500
> 
> Then we should remove them all.  I know some FSF members have tried to
> do a sweep of the kernel tree at times to at least get rid of the old
> physical address, but it looks like that didn't work very well.
> 
> I don't want to see this get worse over time, Josh, thanks for doing
> this checkpatch patch.
> 
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

Thanks, Greg!

Given this ack, any objections to merging the patch in its current form?

- Josh Triplett

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:18 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:27:39PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
[]
> any objections to merging the patch in its current form?

Your own suggestion that this be applied only to
patches hasn't been implemented.

This patch emits an ERROR not a WARN or CHK.

It encourages people to modify files that may not
need modification and there hasn't been any agreement
that this is complete.

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Josh Triplett]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:27:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:18 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:27:39PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> []
> > any objections to merging the patch in its current form?
> 
> Your own suggestion that this be applied only to
> patches hasn't been implemented.

Given Greg's comment that we want to eliminate the existing instances, I
wanted to make sure implementing that change still makes sense.

I can easily enough make checkpatch emit an ERROR for patches and a WARN
or CHK for existing files, if that's the consensus.

- Josh Triplett

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:33 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:27:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:18 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:27:39PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > > > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > > > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> > []
> > > any objections to merging the patch in its current form?
> > 
> > Your own suggestion that this be applied only to
> > patches hasn't been implemented.
> 
> Given Greg's comment that we want to eliminate the existing instances, I
> wanted to make sure implementing that change still makes sense.
> 
> I can easily enough make checkpatch emit an ERROR for patches and a WARN
> or CHK for existing files, if that's the consensus.

Hi Josh

Most of the time, action is at least as useful as consensus.

If you do the runtime --file check, please use this form:

	my $msg_type = \&WARN;
	$msg_type = \&CHK if ($file);
	&{$msg_type}("FSF_MESSAGE",
		     etc...)

(that form matches the trigraph test)

Use whatever ERROR/WARN/CHK you think appropriate.

[PATCHv2] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Josh Triplett]

Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.

Make this an error for new code, but just a --strict CHK in --file mode;
anyone interested in doing tree-wide cleanups of this form can enable
this test explicitly.

Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
---

v2: Make this a CHK in --file mode, using a code pattern suggested by
    Joe Perches.

 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 2ee9eb7..9161533 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1859,6 +1859,18 @@ sub process {
 			$rpt_cleaners = 1;
 		}
 
+# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
+		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ ||
+		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
+		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
+		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
+			my $herevet = "$here\n" . cat_vet($rawline) . "\n";
+			my $msg_type = \&ERROR;
+			$msg_type = \&CHK if ($file);
+			&{$msg_type}("FSF_MAILING_ADDRESS",
+				"Do not include the paragraph about writing to the Free Software Foundation's mailing address from the sample GPL notice. The FSF has changed addresses in the past, and may do so again. Linux already includes a copy of the GPL.\n" . $herevet)
+		}
+
 # check for Kconfig help text having a real description
 # Only applies when adding the entry originally, after that we do not have
 # sufficient context to determine whether it is indeed long enough.
-- 
1.8.4.rc3

Re: [PATCHv2] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:23:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> 
> Make this an error for new code, but just a --strict CHK in --file mode;
> anyone interested in doing tree-wide cleanups of this form can enable
> this test explicitly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

Re: [PATCHv2] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Joe Perches]

(Adding Andrew Morton)

On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 15:23 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> 
> Make this an error for new code, but just a --strict CHK in --file mode;
> anyone interested in doing tree-wide cleanups of this form can enable
> this test explicitly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> ---
> 
> v2: Make this a CHK in --file mode, using a code pattern suggested by
>     Joe Perches.
> 
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 2ee9eb7..9161533 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -1859,6 +1859,18 @@ sub process {
>  			$rpt_cleaners = 1;
>  		}
>  
> +# Check for FSF mailing addresses.
> +		if ($rawline =~ /You should have received a copy/ ||
> +		    $rawline =~ /write to the Free Software/ ||
> +		    $rawline =~ /59 Temple Place/ ||
> +		    $rawline =~ /51 Franklin Street/) {
> +			my $herevet = "$here\n" . cat_vet($rawline) . "\n";
> +			my $msg_type = \&ERROR;
> +			$msg_type = \&CHK if ($file);
> +			&{$msg_type}("FSF_MAILING_ADDRESS",
> +				"Do not include the paragraph about writing to the Free Software Foundation's mailing address from the sample GPL notice. The FSF has changed addresses in the past, and may do so again. Linux already includes a copy of the GPL.\n" . $herevet)
> +		}
> +
>  # check for Kconfig help text having a real description
>  # Only applies when adding the entry originally, after that we do not have
>  # sufficient context to determine whether it is indeed long enough.

Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>