Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:01:22 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [patch 4/9] LICENSES/GPL2.0: Add GPL-2.0-only/or-later as valid identifiers |
| |
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:52:29 +0200 > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu: > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and > > > GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and > > > GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the > > > identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file. > > > > > > Add them to make everything consistent again. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > > Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com> > > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> > > > > As much as I dislike the "new" identifiers, I guess trying to hold them > > back is a pointless exercise :( > > Well, it is part of the SPDX spec, so it should be valid, no matter > of personal tastes. > > I'd say that we should clearly point what SPDX version is preferred at: > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst > > And, if we adopt version 3.0, change the described license tags > accordingly, as the tags showed there are for some pre-version 3.0 > SPDX version (but the file doesn't mention if it follows SPDX version > 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 or 2.1).
We need to grab the new version anyway due to the new Linux-OpenIB license ID.
And we can document that the new -only and -or-later versions are preferred, but should we really patch thousands of files just to update the IDs?
I don't think so, SPDX better get their act together and mark them as equivalent.
Thanks,
tglx
| |