[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171107191526.x3rzfcnnlmaz264d@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:15:26 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license
identifier to files with no license
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2,
> > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it.
> >
> > No copyright was changed, nothing at all happened except we explicitly
> > list the license of the file, instead of it being "implicit" before.
>
> Well if Christoph owns the copyright (if there is one) and he has stated
> he believes it is too trivial to copyright then it needs an SPDX tag that
> indicates the rightsholder has stated it's too trivial to copyright and
> (by estoppel) revoked any right they might have to pursue a claim.
If Cristoph has revoked any right to pursue a claim, then he's also
legally given up the right to complain if, say, Bradley Kuhn starting
distributing a version with a GPLv3 permission statement --- or if Greg
K-H adds a GPLv2 SPDX identifier. :-)
- Ted
> I'm sure there's a correct SPDX tag for that ;-)
>
> Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists