From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755912AbdKOHrA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 15 Nov 2017 02:47:00 -0500
Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:52135 "EHLO mout02.posteo.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751155AbdKOHqz (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 15 Nov 2017 02:46:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:46:51 +0100
From: Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] samples: replace FSF address with web source in license
 notices
In-Reply-To: <20171115062955.GA16601@kroah.com>
References: <20171114095037.28563-1-martink@posteo.de>
 <20171115062955.GA16601@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <19e33c22c64218d4fca53871f3408871@posteo.de>
User-Agent: Posteo Webmail
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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?

Other than I don't like mixing // and /**/ comments, it indeed looks
quite clean. Is there consensus about the syntax too?

thanks

                                martin