From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752876AbdKIKkV (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 05:40:21 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:37582 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750936AbdKIKkR (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 05:40:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:40:28 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Kate Stewart , Philippe Ombredanne Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/ Message-ID: <20171109104028.GA13751@kroah.com> References: <20171019083832.GA21820@kroah.com> <20171103102830.GA18343@kroah.com> <20171109095148.GC6074@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171109095148.GC6074@amd> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:51:48AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > It's good to have SPDX identifiers in all files to make it easier to > > audit the kernel tree for correct licenses. > > > > Update the drivers/usb/ and include/linux/usb* files with the correct > > SPDX license identifier based on the license text in the file itself. > > The SPDX identifier is a legally binding shorthand, which can be used > > instead of the full boiler plate text. > > > > This work is based on a script and data from Thomas Gleixner, Philippe > > Ombredanne, and Kate Stewart. > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner > > Cc: Kate Stewart > > Cc: Philippe Ombredanne > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > --- > > v2: Use the "standard" format of putting the identifier at the top of > > the file, and use // for .c and .h files. > > Removed the files already marked in Linus's tree. > > > > Unless someone really complains, I'm going to add this to my tree for > > 4.15-rc1. > > as you said in some other email... this stands out a bit too > much. That is the goal, sorry. > What about using normal c comments, and put it near the original > license text? It is not exactly the most important thing... > > Or maybe near the MODULE_LICENSE, so the two don't get out of sync? No, the top of the file is best, thanks. And once we get the MODULE_LICENSE in sync with the actual license of the file (there are tools being written to catch these issues, of which we have a lot in the current tree), neither should really change any over time. thanks, greg k-h