linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arch/x86/kvm/ioapic: Remove license boilerplate with bad FSF address

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: <2025080228-easily-clanking-0ddd@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 08:56:57 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch/x86/kvm/ioapic: Remove license boilerplate with
 bad FSF address

On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 01:26:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 28/07/2025 17.50, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > From: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place"
> > > > anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here.
> > > > But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's
> > > > rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX
> > > > license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser*
> > > > General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the
> > > > right choice here.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier
> > > 
> > > If you look at the LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 file, it says to use:
> > > 	SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> > > 
> > > as the kernel's SPDX level is older than you might think.
> > > 
> > > Also, doesn't the scripts/spdxcheck.pl tool object to the "or-later"
> > > when you run it on the tree with this change in it?
> > 
> > Ugh, sorry, no, it lists both, the tool should have been fine.  I was
> > reading the text of the file, not the headers at the top of it.  My
> > fault.
> 
> By the way, is there a reason why LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 suggests only
> the old variant:
> 
>   For 'GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or any later
>   version' use:
>     SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
> 
> ... while LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 suggests both:
> 
>   For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
>     SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>   or
>     SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> 
> That looks somewhat inconsistent to me... Should the LGPL files be updated?

If you want to, sure.  Odds are we don't have many LGPL files in the
tree for it to ever be noticed before.

thanks,

greg k-h