netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2 09/10] tc: use SPDX

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:   Sat, 14 Jan 2023 16:42:25 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 09/10] tc: use SPDX

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:32:03AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:34:59 +0100
> Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 07:17:11PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > Replace GPL boilerplate with SPDX.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>  
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > >  #include <stdio.h>
> > > diff --git a/tc/q_atm.c b/tc/q_atm.c
> > > index 77b56825f777..07866ccf2fce 100644
> > > --- a/tc/q_atm.c
> > > +++ b/tc/q_atm.c
> > > @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
> > >   * q_atm.c		ATM.
> > >   *
> > >   * Hacked 1998-2000 by Werner Almesberger, EPFL ICA
> > > - *
> > >   */
> > >  
> > >  #include <stdio.h>  
> > 
> > Maybe add an SPDX header here?
> > I assume it is GPL-2.0-or-later.
> > Or is that pushing our luck?
> > 
> > >  #include <stdio.h>
> > > diff --git a/tc/q_dsmark.c b/tc/q_dsmark.c
> > > index d3e8292d777c..9adceba59c99 100644
> > > --- a/tc/q_dsmark.c
> > > +++ b/tc/q_dsmark.c
> > > @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
> > >   * q_dsmark.c		Differentiated Services field marking.
> > >   *
> > >   * Hacked 1998,1999 by Werner Almesberger, EPFL ICA
> > > - *
> > >   */
> > >  
> > >  #include <stdio.h>  
> > 
> > Ditto.
> 
> Both q_dsmark.c and q_atm.c for 1st pass on using SPDX
> and both had no previous specific license text.
> 
> At the time, my arbitrary decision was that if no other license
> was specified the original author expected that the code would
> be GPL2.0 only like the kernel.

Fair enough. In that light I agree with the approach you have taken.