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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:47:40 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <>
        Johannes Berg <>,
        Takashi Iwai <>, Jiri Kosina <>,
        Ciaran Farrell <>,
        Christopher De Nicolo <>,
        Jeff Mahoney <>,
        Vojtech Pavlik <>, Mel Gorman <>,
        Hannes Reinecke <>,
        Alan Cox <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Russell King <>,
        Theodore Ts'o <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>,
        Kate Stewart <>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] driver core: Remove redundant license text

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:26:30PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:30:09PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > Now that the SPDX tag is in all driver core files, that identifies the
> > license in a specific and legally-defined manner.
> Takashi and Jiri mentioned that the effort to add SPDX tags to files which did
> not have licensing was discussed at the maintainers summit and it was agreed
> upon there that this made sense. That is wonderful.
> Naturally, even despite this, some still have their own questions about this
> work [0]. And some others seem to actually have pointed out that the work might
> have some technical issues [1] likely worth considering.
> [0]
> [1]
> > So the extra GPL text wording can be removed 
> Highlight *removed*
> > as it is no longer needed at all.
> This secondary however was not.

Was not what?  Discussed?  Yes it was.  I think the article even
says so.

> But this begs the question that if there is still questions, issues pointed
> out, and request for a bit more open discussion about the *first* SPDX effort
> of adding a tag to files which have no license, if there was *any* due process
> for creating consensus for also going along with this *secondary* SPDX effort
> of license *simplification* by replacing old boiler plate license tags with an
> SPDX tag.
> At least internally within SUSE I can say so far that we are surprised by these
> patches and work. We did not know, and this is the first of communication of
> such effort.
> Don't get me wrong, these simplifications make perfect sense to me! But in
> dealing with licensing considerations before on Linux I've learned through
> feedback from you, Alan, and Ted and others to also be *extremely* careful and
> sensitive about licensing annotation matters, and this type of change seems to
> likely deserve a bit more community consensus than what this seems to be
> getting.
> Not even an RFC. So why rush this work in?

I don't post RFCs :)

As for "rush", not really, might as well do it sometime, so I've created
a bunch of patches and merged some of them.  It's going to be a lot of
work, someone had to start it :)

Thomas is working on a document to describe this, hopefully it will be
done soon.

> > This is done on a quest to remove the 700+ different ways that files in
> > the kernel describe the GPL license text.  And there's unneeded stuff
> > like the address (sometimes incorrect) for the FSF which is never
> > needed.
> Completely agreed, all this stuff is rather silly, however which tag is used,
> when, and how seems to have never been discussed and vetted anywhere to my
> knowledge.

"which" tag is just SPDX, that's easy.  As for "when and how", I don't
understand the question.

> Below I leave two examples of the patch, but leave in place the diffstat.

I don't understand, do you object to the patches?  Do you not think they
should be merged?  If so, please let me know.


greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists