linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] module.h: Fix full name of the GPL

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:36:03 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:MODULE SUPPORT" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:MODULE SUPPORT" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: Fix full name of the GPL

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:32:26PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 03:49:02 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 08:34:43PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
> > 
> > No patch description, really?
> 

<some odd rationale to describe why your commit log is empty>

> So I could've added "The full name of the GPL is not GNU Public License, but 
> GNU *General* Public License." to/as the explanation body, but I didn't 
> consider that to provide extra (needed) info which wasn't clear from the 
> Subject and diff.
> 
> My only previous patch submission (to the linux kernel) did contain a full 
> explanation body: 7074b39d83f5d71fa4f0521b28bd4fb3a22152c1
> 
> *) I made a clusterfsck of similar patch submissions where I replaced "GNU 
> Public License" with "GNU General Public License", and got the exact same 
> comment from Bagas to several of them.
> I've (now) retracted all of those patches, except this one. In those other 
> ones, I later realized I would actually be changing the license, not merely 
> fixing a spelling error.
> See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/

We use SPDX for precise langauges for the license used. Patches like
these and the one you just sent are otherwise not adding more.

> AFAICT, for this patch I'm not changing the actual license, only references to 
> that license, so that can still be considered spelling fixes.
> That's why I haven't requested to ignore this patch (too).

The only reference we care for is the SPDX one and that work is already done.
As such minor fixes in spelling like yours won't do any good but just
noise at this point. That's exactly why SPDX license tags were
embraced, to make this simple and let us move on with life while having
one simple codified reference to the license so we don't need to deal
with redundant patches fixing grammar on license many times.

As such this changes is not needed.

  Luis