[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1513277679.27409.83.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:54:39 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@...il.com>, hyun.kwon@...inx.com,
michal.simek@...inx.com, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Joe,
Hi Laurent.
> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> > Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> > explicit license is different than removing the license
> > text itself.
>
> The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.
I understand that.
At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
as that license states:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
etc...
> The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel in one go
> was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.
Not really, it was scripted.
> This is no different
> than not including the full GPL license in every header file but only pointing
> to it through its name and reference, as every kernel source file does.
Not every kernel source file had a license text
or a reference to another license file.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists