lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
    On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
    <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
    > On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:53:54PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
    >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
    >> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
    >> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
    >> >> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 11:28:30AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    >> >> > 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 <tglx@linutronix.de>
    >> >> > Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
    >> >> > Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
    >> >> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    >> >>
    >> >> I noticed several MODULE_LICENSE macros which did not match the headers
    >> >> (e.g. "GPL" being used for version 2 only modules) for which I'll send a
    >> >> follow-up patch.
    >> >>
    >> >> Someone should probably write a script for that once the SPDX
    >> >> identifiers are in.
    >> >
    >> > Yes, I think that someone might have a script for that, it will be much
    >> > easier to detect these things now. The issue is that the "v2" marking
    >> > came after the original "GPL" marking for MODULE_LICENSE() from what I
    >> > remember, so many of those will be wrong.
    >>
    >> If this can help my [1] tool can detect both header-level licenses-in-comments
    >> as well as MODULE_LICENSE macros. Based on that we could reasonably
    >> easily craft a script that scans a file and report discrepancies
    >> between the two.
    >
    > That would be great, as there are going to be a lot of these showing up
    > soon, as we start adding the SPDX identifiers to the files based on the
    > license text and the mis-matches become obvious.

    I can run a scancode scan to list modules with a license that does not
    match their MODULE_LICENSE (irrespective of whether they have an SPDX id
    already or not)
    I can then either provide a CSV (or provide an eventually big patch).
    Which do you prefer?
    What should be the tree to run this on: Yours? usb? Linus's?
    tip of the tree or a tag?

    If you prefer a patch, what should be the rationale when licenses do not match?
    I guess update the MODULE_LICENSE to match the license comment?

    --
    Cordially
    Philippe Ombredanne

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-11-05 16:40    [W:3.762 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site