From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751198AbdKLUUF (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:20:05 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:59455 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750910AbdKLUUD (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:20:03 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:19:55 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Jonathan Corbet cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Philippe Ombredanne , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Christoph Hellwig , Russell King , Rob Herring , Jonas Oberg , Joe Perches , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Kate Stewart Subject: Re: [patch 1/7] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses In-Reply-To: <20171112130746.607facb6@lwn.net> Message-ID: References: <20171112191821.240484206@linutronix.de> <20171112192142.525567667@linutronix.de> <20171112130746.607facb6@lwn.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:18:22 +0100 > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > + C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: > > + C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: */ > > So I can't be the only person with nothing better to do than to wonder why > source and header files use a different comment syntax. Maybe the document > could explain that? Will do. The reason is that some build steps, one of them related to generated .lds files fail with C++ style comments. Linus fixed the .lds one, but there is at least an older ASM tool which doesn't like them. > > + ASM: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: */ > > +OR should be used if the file is dual licensed and only one license is > > +to be selected. For example, some dtsi files are available under dual > > +licenses: > > It would be good to document the set of permissible WITH exceptions. Or > people will surely get creative in making up new ones. > > > OK, I see that has been done, so amend that comment to suggest a line > saying that the set of exceptions is documented below. Will do. The other thing is, that the exception files have the applicable licenses in it so something like checkpatch.pl can verify it. Thanks, tglx