linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] license-rules.rst and LICENSES: Use only spdx version 3 with -only and -or-later

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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:46:13 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <rob.herring@...aro.org>,
        Jonas Oberg <jonas@...e.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] license-rules.rst and LICENSES: Use only spdx version
 3 with -only and -or-later

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 09:17:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:01 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > How likely is it that this is applied at rc1?
> > 
> > I'm staying out of the crazy license name bikeshedding, so it's going
> > to be up to the people who have decided they care.
> > 
> > I think whoever *did* care and argued for the change to the SPDX
> > format is a hopeless wanker. "GPL-2.0{-only,-or-later}" is in no ways
> > better than the "GPL-2.0{,+}" that was in an earlier version of the
> > SPDX spec
> > 
> > So I want nothing at all to do with pointless patches. Life is too
> > short to deal with this.
> > 
> > Other people disagree, so I expect I will get these kinds of stupid
> > noise patches through the usual channels.
> 
> I'm not a great fan of that change either. We have settled on a well
> documented and machine readable format. External tools have to be able to
> deal with SPDX versions anyway and if we do this now, then we have the next
> round of pointless churn in a year when the SPDX folks decide to rename yet
> another license identifier which is used in the kernel.

I too agree with Thomas, the SPDX change was crazy, what we have now is
fine and we should stick with it.

thanks,

greg k-h