linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] driver core: Remove redundant license text

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]

Message-ID: <20171109140027.GA9959@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 06:00:27 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Ciaran Farrell <ciaran.farrell@...e.com>,
        Christopher De Nicolo <cdenicolo@...e.com>,
        Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
        Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Russell King <rmk@...linux.org.uk>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] driver core: Remove redundant license text

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 02:47:40PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Was not what?  Discussed?  Yes it was.  I think the lwn.net article even
> says so.

There is absolutely no public track record of any discussion.  And if
there was any it seems like a large number of the biggest contributors
and copyright holders in the kernel were excluded.

So please state what was decided, where it was deciced, who decided it
and why as a start.

This whole debacle is not how we normally communicate big changes in
the kernel community, and that is double worrisome because it is
an important area with legal implications.

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

And where is our defintion of SPDX in our kernel tree?  As said in
another thread, yes I can google it.  But that doesn't provide a stable
defintion, nevermind that we do not even have a pointer to it from
anywhere in the tree.

If your use of SPDX is apparently fine because people must know I'll
just invent my own tags and mandate them [1].

[1] not that I have anything about the SPDX tags in particular, it's
just the way you rush them in without even defining them for us.