Messages in this thread | | | From | Philippe Ombredanne <> | Date | Thu, 8 Feb 2018 19:09:34 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch.pl: Add SPDX license tag check |
| |
Joe,
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 15:35 +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >> However checking that licenses ids are known and listed in the kernel >> doc is essential IMHO to avoid drift and insulate the kernel from SPDX >> updates. Case in point the new SPDX "GPL-2.0-only" is NOT what was >> documented by tglx and therefore should not be used and banned until >> we update the doc accordingly. and until we update ALL the GPL-2.0 to >> GPL-2.0-only eventually which is best done at once. > > Agree and I've attached what I believe to be a > reasonable script for that conversion only after > LICENSE directories are updated with the > appropriate and license files and after > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst is modified.
Excellent and clean!
>> Otherwise, this is >> going to be a total mess on top of a complicated topic that requires >> quite a bit of maintainer energy! > > There will always be some energy requirement and > no doubt some legal advice involvement too. > > In another vein: > > The existing license files in spdx.org seem > somewhat sloppily edited and perhaps have less > clarity and precision than desired. > > For instance: > > If the newer SPDX descriptor "GPL-2.0-only" is to > be used, why does this license URL: > > https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-only.html > > still contain the phrase ", or (at your option) any later version". > > The current diff between GPL-2.0-only and GPL-2.0-or-later: > > $ wget -q https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-only.html > $ wget -q https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html > $ diff -U0 GPL-2.0-only.html GPL-2.0-or-later.html > --- GPL-2.0-only.html 2017-12-28 12:17:20.000000000 -0800 > +++ GPL-2.0-or-later.html 2017-12-28 12:17:22.000000000 -0800 > @@ -15 +15 @@ > - <title>GNU General Public License v2.0 only | Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX)</title> > + <title>GNU General Public License v2.0 or later | Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX)</title> > @@ -141 +141 @@ > - <h1 property="dc:title">GNU General Public License v2.0 only</h1> > + <h1 property="dc:title">GNU General Public License v2.0 or later</h1> > @@ -144 +144 @@ > - <p style="margin-left: 20px;"><code property="spdx:name">GNU General Public License v2.0 only</code></p> > + <p style="margin-left: 20px;"><code property="spdx:name">GNU General Public License v2.0 or later</code></p> > @@ -147 +147 @@ > - <p style="margin-left: 20px;"><code property="spdx:licenseId">GPL-2.0-only</code></p> > + <p style="margin-left: 20px;"><code property="spdx:licenseId">GPL-2.0-or-later</code></p> > @@ -160 +160 @@ > - <p style="margin-left: 20px;">This license was released: June 1991 This refers to when this GPL 2.0 only is being used (as opposed to GPLv2 or later).</p> > + <p style="margin-left: 20px;">This license was released: June 1991</p> > @@ -679 +679,2 @@ > - as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2. > + as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 > + or any later version. > > > I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc... but: > > The "1991 This" use in the -only file seems be missing > a period. > > In any case it is awkwardly phrased as "or later" perhaps > should not be referenced at all. > > The GPL 2.0 license as published by the Free Software > Foundation includes the option for using later versions. > > Perhaps the SPDX -only licenses should be more specific > when it uses the phrase "as published by the Free > Software Foundation; version <n>." to specifically > exclude the option of any later version.
Good points and this is why we have and need to use the kernel doc as the stable reference IMHO.
FWIW, I have raised a ticket with SPDX [2] so that the issue you have found can be properly fixed there. Also, I think this (the new -only license ids that I think we should not yet use) has been reviewed in details by the SPDX legal group and by the FSF. At least rms posted an article about it last December [2] ?
[1] https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/610 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20171221220428/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html
-- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne
| |