On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:52:29 +0200
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Quite some files have been flagged with the new GPL-2.0-only and
> > > GPL-2.0-or-later identifiers which replace the original GPL-2.0 and
> > > GPL-2.0+ identifiers in the SPDX license identifier specification, but the
> > > identifiers are not mentioned as valid in the GPL-2.0 license file.
> > >
> > > Add them to make everything consistent again.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verk...@cisco.com>
> > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@s-opensource.com>
> >
> > As much as I dislike the "new" identifiers, I guess trying to hold them
> > back is a pointless exercise :(
>
> Well, it is part of the SPDX spec, so it should be valid, no matter
> of personal tastes.
>
> I'd say that we should clearly point what SPDX version is preferred at:
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
>
> And, if we adopt version 3.0, change the described license tags
> accordingly, as the tags showed there are for some pre-version 3.0
> SPDX version (but the file doesn't mention if it follows SPDX version
> 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 or 2.1).
We need to grab the new version anyway due to the new Linux-OpenIB
license ID.
And we can document that the new -only and -or-later versions are
preferred, but should we really patch thousands of files just to update the
IDs?
I don't think so, SPDX better get their act together and mark them as
equivalent.
Thanks,
tglx
