netdev - Re: [PATCH 05/11] can: rcar: use SPDX identifier for Renesas drivers

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: <CAOFm3uF9_rbELx0aYLDXpDnZfi2Z11V1Z4Ktw+DDJT62o2S1kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 20:16:45 +0200
From:   Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
To:     Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...il.com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] can: rcar: use SPDX identifier for Renesas drivers

Hi Fabio,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
>>
>>> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>>>
>>> According to Documentation/process/license-rules.rst the format should
>>> be like this instead:
>>>
>>> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>
>> According to https://spdx.org/licenses/ it should be what I did above.
>
> Previous advice I saw was to follow the format described in
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
>
> Greg/Philippe,
>
> Any inputs on this matter?
>
> Thanks

IMHO we should always treat and use the
Documentation/process/license-rules.rst as the reference and not SPDX
proper who moves at its own pace and evolves its specs and license ids
independently of where we stand in the kernel.
If this is not right Doc patches are welcomed!
In this is very specific case this has been discussed on list a few
times. If I recall correctly Thomas also had an opinion on this...
So you are correct and this should be for now:
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne