linux-kernel - Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

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: <20171125190447.GB5114@amd>
Date:   Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:04:47 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <rob.herring@...aro.org>,
        Jonas Oberg <jonas@...e.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@...il.com>,
        Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbianca@...e.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to
 describe how to properly identify file licenses

On Wed 2017-11-22 14:48:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET)
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> escreveu:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:  
> > > > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage
> > > > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do:  
> > > > 
> > > > Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX?  I'd also much prefer that over
> > > > the nasty C99 comments to start with.  And while I'm a bit behind on
> > > > email I still haven't managed to find a good rationale for those to
> > > > start with.
> > 
> > Yeah, I also find nasty to have things like this on each C file:
> > 
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > /*
> >  * Copyright ...
> >  * ...
> >  */
> > 
> > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong
> > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright
> > header on both C and H files at development time.
> 
> You break the build when you get it wrong, so you will notice it.  For
> most "internal" .h files, using // is just fine.
> 
> Yes, it's "ugly", but again, that's what Linus said he wanted it to look
> like, take it up with him :)

Linus said:

# So in general, the _hope_ is that we can just end up replacing
# existing boilerplate comments with that single line SPDX comment
# (using "//" in *.[ch] files, but obviously some other kinds of files
# end up having a different comment character, typically '#').

That does not sound like he was deciding between /* */ and //. And
actually this was in context of files with no existing license. You
made the ugly patches. Stop hiding behind Linus.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)