From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851CAC16A69 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 06:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B3F217F9 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 06:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728775AbfEVGe1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 02:34:27 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0072.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.72]:41314 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728367AbfEVGe0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 02:34:26 -0400 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2AE181D3419; Wed, 22 May 2019 06:34:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: cart68_7d607343ca553 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3505 Received: from XPS-9350.home (cpe-23-242-196-136.socal.res.rr.com [23.242.196.136]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 22 May 2019 06:34:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SPDX update for 5.2-rc1 - round 1 From: Joe Perches To: Masahiro Yamada , Greg KH , Thomas Gleixner Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 23:34:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20190521133257.GA21471@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.1-1build1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 13:32 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:34 PM Greg KH wrote: [] > > - Add GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later tags to files where our scan > > tools can determine the license text in the file itself. Where this > > happens, the license text is removed, in order to cut down on the > > 700+ different ways we have in the kernel today, in a quest to get > > rid of all of these. [] > I have been wondering for a while > which version of spdx tags I should use in my work. > > I know the 'GPL-2.0' tag is already deprecated. > (https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html) > > But, I saw negative reaction to this: > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/975394/ > > Nor "-only" / "-or-later" are documented in > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst > > In this patch series, Thomas used 'GPL-2.0-only' and 'GPL-2.0-or-later' > instead of 'GPL-2.0' and 'GPL-2.0+'. > > Now, we have a great number of users of spdx v3 tags. > $ git grep -P 'SPDX-License-Identifier.*(?:-or-later|-only)'| wc -l > 4135 > So, what I understood is: > > For newly added tags, '*-only' and '*-or-later' are preferred. > > (But, we do not convert existing spdx v2 tags globally.) > > > " > Joe's patch was not merged, but at least > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst > should be updated in my opinion. > > (Perhaps, checkpatch.pl can suggest newer tags in case > patch submitters do not even know that deprecation.) I'd still prefer the kernel use of a single SPDX style. I don't know why the -only and -or-later forms were used for this patch, but I like it. I believe the -only and -or-later are more intelligible as a trivial reading of SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 would generally mean to me the original GPL-2.0 license without the elision of the (or at your option, any later version) bits whereas SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only seems fairly descriptive. Is it agreed that the GPL--only and GPL--or-later forms should be preferred for new SPDX identifiers? If so, I'll submit a checkpatch patch. I could also wire up a patch to checkpatch and docs to remove the /* */ requirement for .h files and prefer the generic // form for both .c and .h files as the current minimum tooling versions now all allow // comments .