linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/9] LICENSES/GPL2.0: Add GPL-2.0-only/or-later as valid 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: <20180423071453.25deeb48@vento.lan>
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:14:53 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/9] LICENSES/GPL2.0: Add GPL-2.0-only/or-later as valid
 identifiers

Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:52:29 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> escreveu:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and
> > GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and
> > GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the
> > identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file.
> > 
> > Add them to make everything consistent again.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>
> > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>  
> 
> As much as I dislike the "new" identifiers, I guess trying to hold them
> back is a pointless exercise :(

Well, it is part of the SPDX spec, so it should be valid, no matter
of personal tastes.

I'd say that we should clearly point what SPDX version is preferred at:
	Documentation/process/license-rules.rst

And, if we adopt version 3.0, change the described license tags
accordingly, as the tags showed there are for some pre-version 3.0
SPDX version (but the file doesn't mention if it follows SPDX version
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 or 2.1).

Anyway, for this specific patch:

Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>


Thanks,
Mauro