[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D5P6NQ9ZWP13.K9G49CLMO6LV@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:05:27 +0100
From: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>, Daniel
Gomez <d+samsung@...ces.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Greg
Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>, <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
<petr.pavlu@...e.com>, <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
<linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux@...mhuis.info>, <vv@...edocomputers.com>, <cs@...edo.de>,
<linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] module: Block a module by TUXEDO from accessing
GPL symbols
On Sat Nov 16, 2024 at 6:20 PM CET, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:15:55AM +0100, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>> On Fri Nov 15, 2024 at 7:50 PM CET, Werner Sembach wrote:
>> > From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
>> >
>> > TUXEDO has not yet relicensed a module for GPLv2+ as a reply from former
>> > contributers the committed code under GPLv3+ is awaited.
>>
>> FYI, the SPDX identifier GPL-2.0+ is deprecated as of 2.0rc2 [1]. I think you'd
>> need to use GPL-2.0-or-later [2] instead. And when using the SPDX identifier,
>> you don't need to include the full text boilerplate in the source of every file
>> as long as you include a LICENSE file or COPYRIGHT file with a copy of the
>> license. One example upstream here [3] commit 1a59d1b8e05ea ("treewide: Replace
>> GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - rule 156").
>>
>> [1] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=86f7819c-e78c2b15-86f60ad3-74fe48600034-4f48619e45d5b211&q=1&e=7cb2448b-7ab2-415e-b77d-ad14970bc0a0&u=https%3A%2F%2Fspdx.org%2Flicenses%2FGPL-2.0%2B.html
>> [2] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=939eb0bf-f2e51a36-939f3bf0-74fe48600034-b542784fecbfce13&q=1&e=7cb2448b-7ab2-415e-b77d-ad14970bc0a0&u=https%3A%2F%2Fspdx.org%2Flicenses%2FGPL-2.0-or-later.html
>> [3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v6.12-rc7&id=1a59d1b8e05ea
>
> If you're convinced that "GPL-2.0-or-later" is the right string to use
> (and the following somewhat agrees with you:
Thomas and Greg may have decided not deprecating the old identifiers [1]
to avoid modifying thousands of files. I think it was expected the SPDX
to mark them as equivalent? But I'm not entirely sure if this is the
correct approach though as SPDX marks them as deprecated as I mentioned
earlier.
Thomas, Greg, are we using any specific SPDX version for kernel license
identifiers? Why the new identifiers where amended as valid and not
replacing [2] the old ones? Was it to avoid replacing all files with the
old id?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/alpine.DEB.2.21.1804240953460.5261@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/
[2] 9376ff9ba298c983062a12cbbafde506a4eaea71 ("LICENSES/GPL2.0: Add
GPL-2.0-only/or-later as valid identifiers")
Daniel
>
> linux$ git rev-parse next/master
> 744cf71b8bdfcdd77aaf58395e068b7457634b2c
>
> linux$ git grep -l -F 'SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+' next/master | wc -l
> 3640
>
> linux$ git grep -l -F 'SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later' next/master | wc -l
> 9005
> )
>
> you can consider patching Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which
> currently reads:
>
> License identifiers for licenses like [L]GPL with the 'or later' option
> are constructed by using a "+" for indicating the 'or later' option.::
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists