linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/7] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 12 Nov 2017 11:54:34 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kate Stewart <kate@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <rob.herring@...aro.org>,
        Jonas Oberg <jonas@...e.org>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/7] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe
 how to properly identify file licenses

On Sun, 2017-11-12 at 20:18 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses
> should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well
> as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to
> refer to (LICENSES/).
> 
> Thanks to Kate, Philippe and Greg for review and editing!
p[
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/license-rules.rst
[]
> +The common way of expressing the license of a source file is to add the
> +matching boiler plate text into the top comment of the file.  Due to
> +formatting, typos etc.  These "boiler plates" are hard to validate for
> +tools, which are used in the context of license compliance.

There is bad sentence construction here and it is a
little difficult to parse what is intended.

"These" should not be capitalized.

This SPDX info should also be place in the Documentation/process
content somewhere.