linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

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: <20171116114110.GA5892@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:41:10 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX
 identifiers

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:44:11PM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> This replaces license permission statements that include a wrong postal
> address of the FSF with only SPDX license identifiers; in the samples
> directory.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
> ---
> 
> I'll fold this in, in the thread here. I guess this change is what Greg
> had in mind? Or would you prefer having including SPDX and removing
> permission statement seperately?

I have been doing them in 2 steps, but only because the files I modified
were in different "chunks" (i.e. add missing SPDX identifiers to a bunch
of files in a directory, and then the second patch would remove the
license identifiers for all files in that directory).  As that type of
patch flow doesn't make sense here, I think what you did was just fine.

Nice job.

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>