linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] samples: replace FSF address with web source in license notices

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: <19e33c22c64218d4fca53871f3408871@posteo.de>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:46:51 +0100
From:   Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] samples: replace FSF address with web source in license
 notices

Am 15.11.2017 07:29 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:50:37AM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>> A few years ago the FSF moved and "59 Temple Place" is wrong. Having 
>> this
>> still in our source files feels old and unmaintained.
>> 
>> Let's take the license statement serious and not confuse users.
>> 
>> As https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html suggests, we replace 
>> the
>> postal address with "<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>" in the samples
>> directory.
> 
> What would be best is to just put the SPDX single line at the top of 
> the
> files, and then remove this license "boilerplate" entirely.  I've
> started to do that with some subsystems already (drivers/usb/ and
> drivers/tty/ are almost finished, see Linus's tree for details), and
> I've sent out a patch series for drivers/s390/ yesterday if you want to
> see an example of how to do it.
> 
> Could you do that here instead of this patch as well?
> 

Is there consensus about this? I'm not a layer, but is this clear enough 
for
useres? And what holds against only adding the new SPDX tag line at the 
top?

Other than I don't like mixing // and /**/ comments, it indeed looks
quite clean. Is there consensus about the syntax too?

thanks

                                martin