[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1517598363.7489.126.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 02 Feb 2018 11:06:03 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch.pl: Add SPDX license tag check
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 12:27 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> wrote:
> > On 02/02/18 17:40, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > Add SPDX license tag check based on the rules defined in
> > 
> > Shouldn't it also check that the license is compatible?
> > 
> 
> Perhaps we shouldn't try to script legal advice.
True.
I believe what was meant was that the
entry was a valid SPDX License entry
that already exists as a specific file
in the LICENSES/ path.
So that entry must be some combination of:
$ git ls-files LICENSES/ | cut -f3- -d'/' | sort
BSD-2-Clause
BSD-3-Clause
BSD-3-Clause-Clear
GPL-1.0
GPL-2.0
LGPL-2.0
LGPL-2.1
Linux-syscall-note
MIT
MPL-1.1
>From my perspective, it'd be better if the
various + uses had their own individual
license files in the LICENSES/ path.
Right now, there are many missing licenses
that are already used by various existing
SPDX-License-Identifier: entries.
APACHE-2.0
BSD
CDDL
CDDL-1.0
ISC
GPL-1.0+
GPL-2.0+
LGPL-2.1+
OpenSSL
There are odd entries like:
GPL-2.0-only
Parentheses around AND/OR aren't consistent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
