linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch.pl: Add SPDX license tag check

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:   Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:41:45 +0200
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch.pl: Add SPDX license tag check



On 02/02/18 21:06, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 12:27 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/02/18 17:40, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> Add SPDX license tag check based on the rules defined in
>>>
>>> Shouldn't it also check that the license is compatible?
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps we shouldn't try to script legal advice.
> 
> True.
> 
> I believe what was meant was that the
> entry was a valid SPDX License entry
> that already exists as a specific file
> in the LICENSES/ path.

I expect that there is a finite number of compatible licenses.
Maybe I'm too optimistic about what can be taken as legal advice or not,
but I would expect that a warning about unmatched license type does not
constitute legal advice.

Is it too optimistic? :-D

--
igor