Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 08:12:23PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > This would be even better: > > > > > > /* > > > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > > > * > > > * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim (tobet...@gmail.com) > > > */ > > > ... > > >

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 08:12:23PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > This would be even better: > > > > > > /* > > > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > > > * > > > * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim (tobet...@gmail.com) > > > */ > > > ... > > >

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Sat, 2017-11-25 at 20:12 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > [Linus Torvalds...] > > Having it be the first line of the file is good, it's obvious, and > > stands out, which is the point, you want it to, it's a license :) > > What is good about that? License is about the least interesting thing >

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Sat, 2017-11-25 at 20:12 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > [Linus Torvalds...] > > Having it be the first line of the file is good, it's obvious, and > > stands out, which is the point, you want it to, it's a license :) > > What is good about that? License is about the least interesting thing >

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

Hi! > > This would be even better: > > > > /* > > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > > * > > * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim (tobet...@gmail.com) > > */ > > ... > > SPDX_MODULE_LICENSE("GPL-2.0+") > > > > So yes, SPDX can be improvement. But in current

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

Hi! > > This would be even better: > > > > /* > > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > > * > > * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim (tobet...@gmail.com) > > */ > > ... > > SPDX_MODULE_LICENSE("GPL-2.0+") > > > > So yes, SPDX can be improvement. But in current

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 06:07:13PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Lets look at random file in usb: > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > /* > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > * > * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim (tobet...@gmail.com) > */ > ... >

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 06:07:13PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Lets look at random file in usb: > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > /* > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver > * > * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim (tobet...@gmail.com) > */ > ... >

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

Hi! > Christoph: > > I am not speaking for Greg but let me highlight some issues and > benefits as I chipped in a bit to help: > > Some data points in the 4.14.rc7 kernel: > - there are 64,742 distinct license statements > ... in 114,597 blocks of text > ... in 42,602 files > - license

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

Hi! > Christoph: > > I am not speaking for Greg but let me highlight some issues and > benefits as I chipped in a bit to help: > > Some data points in the 4.14.rc7 kernel: > - there are 64,742 distinct license statements > ... in 114,597 blocks of text > ... in 42,602 files > - license

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue 2017-11-07 14:15:26, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > > > > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue 2017-11-07 14:15:26, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > > > > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

> When a file does not have a license, again, all lawyers I have worked > with said it is implicitly GPLv2 I am surprised that they did not immediately see the fact that since the code contributor was not neccessarily the rights holder you could make no assumption as to the actual licencing

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

> When a file does not have a license, again, all lawyers I have worked > with said it is implicitly GPLv2 I am surprised that they did not immediately see the fact that since the code contributor was not neccessarily the rights holder you could make no assumption as to the actual licencing

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:23:35AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > The documentation of this process is lagging the patches, as usually > happens, sorry about that. In cases like this the documentation is the most important part. Without documentation it is completely pointless. > > Thomas

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:23:35AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > The documentation of this process is lagging the patches, as usually > happens, sorry about that. In cases like this the documentation is the most important part. Without documentation it is completely pointless. > > Thomas

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:11:21AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:35:46PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > > The benefits now and later: > > - no distraction with licensing boilerplate cr*p in patches and files > > - no guessing licensing needed when sending a

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:11:21AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:35:46PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > > The benefits now and later: > > - no distraction with licensing boilerplate cr*p in patches and files > > - no guessing licensing needed when sending a

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:46:15AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Had anyone involved us, I would have suggested fixing the whole XFS tree > to use the shortened tag instead of each file containing its own > mutations of the GPL, and our broader XFS community could have worked > with you on this.

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:46:15AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Had anyone involved us, I would have suggested fixing the whole XFS tree > to use the shortened tag instead of each file containing its own > mutations of the GPL, and our broader XFS community could have worked > with you on this.

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:47:04AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:29:03PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:20:42AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 06,

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:47:04AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:29:03PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:20:42AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 06,

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:29:03PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:20:42AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > NAK, for

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:29:03PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:20:42AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > NAK, for

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Given that it had no

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Given that it had no

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

And I swear I wrote the previous mail before I read this announcement: https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20171108-01.en.html But the actual practices there are pretty much what I'd expect as a start (plus a list of acceptable licenses), they even use the same identifiers as you are adding, but

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

And I swear I wrote the previous mail before I read this announcement: https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20171108-01.en.html But the actual practices there are pretty much what I'd expect as a start (plus a list of acceptable licenses), they even use the same identifiers as you are adding, but

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

> By default all files without license information are under the default > license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2. Which is factually incorrect. They are under a licence that is at least as permissive as GPL v2. However they may be under a more permissive licence and as you are

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

> By default all files without license information are under the default > license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2. Which is factually incorrect. They are under a licence that is at least as permissive as GPL v2. However they may be under a more permissive licence and as you are

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:35:46PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > The benefits now and later: > - no distraction with licensing boilerplate cr*p in patches and files > - no guessing licensing needed when sending a patch > - anyone can grep the kernel tree for licensing, no extra tool needed >

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:35:46PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > The benefits now and later: > - no distraction with licensing boilerplate cr*p in patches and files > - no guessing licensing needed when sending a patch > - anyone can grep the kernel tree for licensing, no extra tool needed >

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: >> > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, >> > > so the

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: >> > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, >> > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:42:59PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:42:59PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Given that it had no

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Given that it had no

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > > > so the GPLv2

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > > > so the GPLv2

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > > > > > No copyright was changed,

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:15:26PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > > > > > No copyright was changed,

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all happened except we explicitly > > list the license of the file,

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:46:58PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all happened except we explicitly > > list the license of the file,

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

> Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all happened except we explicitly > list the license of the file, instead of it being "implicit" before. Well if Christoph owns the

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

> Given that it had no license text on it at all, it "defaults" to GPLv2, > so the GPLv2 SPDX identifier was added to it. > > No copyright was changed, nothing at all happened except we explicitly > list the license of the file, instead of it being "implicit" before. Well if Christoph owns the

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:25:17PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > And from what I know, there is nothing that is "non-copyrightable". > > > > > > You'd be wrong on that. Lots of things are not copyrightable. > > > > Ok, fair enough, but code is not one of those :) > > You'd still be wrong.

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:25:17PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > And from what I know, there is nothing that is "non-copyrightable". > > > > > > You'd be wrong on that. Lots of things are not copyrightable. > > > > Ok, fair enough, but code is not one of those :) > > You'd still be wrong.

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:20:42AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > > > What libxfs patch? And

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:20:42AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > > > What libxfs patch? And

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

> > > And from what I know, there is nothing that is "non-copyrightable". > > > > You'd be wrong on that. Lots of things are not copyrightable. > > Ok, fair enough, but code is not one of those :) You'd still be wrong. Alan

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

> > > And from what I know, there is nothing that is "non-copyrightable". > > > > You'd be wrong on that. Lots of things are not copyrightable. > > Ok, fair enough, but code is not one of those :) You'd still be wrong. Alan

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > What libxfs patch? And what "kernel one" are you referring to here? > > > I wrote the file and it

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:39:40AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > What libxfs patch? And what "kernel one" are you referring to here? > > > I wrote the file and it

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:07:44PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:39:40 +0100 > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > > > What

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:07:44PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:39:40 +0100 > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > > > What libxfs patch? And what

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:39:40 +0100 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > What libxfs patch? And what "kernel one" are you referring to here? > > > I

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:39:40 +0100 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. > > What libxfs patch? And what "kernel one" are you referring to here? > > > I wrote the file and it has

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. What libxfs patch? And what "kernel one" are you referring to here? > I wrote the file and it has no copyright header because it conatians > trivial, non-copyrightable code.

Re: WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. What libxfs patch? And what "kernel one" are you referring to here? > I wrote the file and it has no copyright header because it conatians > trivial, non-copyrightable code.

WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. I wrote the file and it has no copyright header because it conatians trivial, non-copyrightable code. I don't know why people think they can touch license information on files I've written without even asking me. Seems like this happened to

WTF? Re: [PATCH] License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license

NAK, for both the libxfs patch and the kernel one. I wrote the file and it has no copyright header because it conatians trivial, non-copyrightable code. I don't know why people think they can touch license information on files I've written without even asking me. Seems like this happened to