linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/

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 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:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:40:28 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in
 drivers/usb/

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:51:48AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > It's good to have SPDX identifiers in all files to make it easier to
> > audit the kernel tree for correct licenses.
> > 
> > Update the drivers/usb/ and include/linux/usb* files with the correct
> > SPDX license identifier based on the license text in the file itself.
> > The SPDX identifier is a legally binding shorthand, which can be used
> > instead of the full boiler plate text.
> > 
> > This work is based on a script and data from Thomas Gleixner, Philippe
> > Ombredanne, and Kate Stewart.
> > 
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > ---
> > v2: Use the "standard" format of putting the identifier at the top of
> >     the file, and use // for .c and .h files.
> >     Removed the files already marked in Linus's tree.
> > 
> > Unless someone really complains, I'm going to add this to my tree for
> > 4.15-rc1.
> 
> as you said in some other email... this stands out a bit too
> much.

That is the goal, sorry.

> What about using normal c comments, and put it near the original
> license text? It is not exactly the most important thing...
> 
> Or maybe near the MODULE_LICENSE, so the two don't get out of sync?

No, the top of the file is best, thanks.

And once we get the MODULE_LICENSE in sync with the actual license of
the file (there are tools being written to catch these issues, of which
we have a lot in the current tree), neither should really change any
over time.

thanks,

greg k-h