[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1521594890.12047.37.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:14:50 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"jogreene@...hat.com" <jogreene@...hat.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [net-next] intel: add SPDX identifiers to all the Intel drivers
On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 18:09 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 16:46 -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> > When the kernel maintainers decide to switch to V3.0 of the SPDX list,
> > the doc will be updated and then Joe's script could be applied at once
> > to update the past.
>
> I am fine with changing my patch back to v2.6 SPDX ids, as long as Joe's
> script in the future won't touch the Intel wired LAN drivers, since we need
> to retain copyright on several files through out our drivers.
Why would exempting intel wired drivers be
necessary or useful?
I think it would be better if the kernel
source files used a consistent tag format.
The script I wrote is basically a sed that
simply updates the SPDX license text.
That is not particular different that Thomas's
original script that added the SPDX tags.
I have no intention of claiming anything like
a copyright on the output of a trivial script.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists