Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:45:41 +0100 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] samples: replace FSF address with web source in license notices |
| |
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 08:46:51AM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote: > Am 15.11.2017 07:29 schrieb Greg KH: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:50:37AM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote: > > > A few years ago the FSF moved and "59 Temple Place" is wrong. Having > > > this > > > still in our source files feels old and unmaintained. > > > > > > Let's take the license statement serious and not confuse users. > > > > > > As https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html suggests, we replace > > > the > > > postal address with "<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>" in the samples > > > directory. > > > > What would be best is to just put the SPDX single line at the top of the > > files, and then remove this license "boilerplate" entirely. I've > > started to do that with some subsystems already (drivers/usb/ and > > drivers/tty/ are almost finished, see Linus's tree for details), and > > I've sent out a patch series for drivers/s390/ yesterday if you want to > > see an example of how to do it. > > > > Could you do that here instead of this patch as well? > > > > Is there consensus about this? I'm not a layer, but is this clear enough for > useres? And what holds against only adding the new SPDX tag line at the top?
What do you mean by "adding a new" line? That would change the license of the file, so don't do that :)
And yes, a single SPDX line in the file is determined to be a valid legal mark of the license of the file according to all of the lawyers I have been working with from lots of different companies. See the last s390 patch series for one such example of that.
> Other than I don't like mixing // and /**/ comments, it indeed looks > quite clean. Is there consensus about the syntax too?
See the patch series from Thomas on lkml for the syntax format, the "consensus" was driven by Linus :)
thanks,
greg k-h
| |