On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:58:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 4:02 PM Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 03:51:18PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:24 PM Greg KH <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 09:17:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:49 AM Greg KH <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > The following changes since commit > > > > > > cd6c84d8f0cdc911df435bb075ba22ce3c605b07: > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux 5.2-rc2 (2019-05-26 16:49:19 -0700) > > > > > > > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git > > > > > > tags/spdx-5.2-rc3-1 > > > > > > > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to > > > > > > 96ac6d435100450f0565708d9b885ea2a7400e0a: > > > > > > > > > > > > treewide: Add SPDX license identifier - Kbuild (2019-05-30 > > > > > > 11:32:33 -0700) > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > SPDX update for 5.2-rc3, round 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is another set of reviewed patches that adds SPDX tags to > > > > > > different > > > > > > kernel files, based on a set of rules that are being used to parse > > > > > > the > > > > > > comments to try to determine that the license of the file is > > > > > > "GPL-2.0-or-later" or "GPL-2.0-only". Only the "obvious" versions > > > > > > of > > > > > > these matches are included here, a number of "non-obvious" variants > > > > > > of > > > > > > text have been found but those have been postponed for later review > > > > > > and > > > > > > analysis. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is also a patch in here to add the proper SPDX header to a > > > > > > bunch > > > > > > of Kbuild files that we have missed in the past due to new files > > > > > > being > > > > > > added and forgetting that Kbuild uses two different file names for > > > > > > Makefiles. This issue was reported by the Kbuild maintainer. > > > > > > > > > > > > These patches have been out for review on the linux-spdx@vger > > > > > > mailing > > > > > > list, and while they were created by automatic tools, they were > > > > > > hand-verified by a bunch of different people, all whom names are on > > > > > > the > > > > > > patches are reviewers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but as long[*] as this does not conform to > > > > > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst, I have to provide my: > > > > > NAked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > [*] The obvious solution is to update > > > > > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst, > > > > > as people have asked before. > > > > > > > > I don't understand, what does not conform? We are trying _to_ conform > > > > to that file, what did we do wrong? > > > > > > The new "-or-later" and "-only" variants are not (yet) documented in that > > > file. > > > > > > File format examples:: > > > > > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html > > > Usage-Guide: > > > To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX > > > tag/value pairs into a comment according to the placement > > > guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. > > > For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use: > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later > > > version' use: > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > > > > They do not have to be documented in that file. As what you quoted > > said, "File format examples::" > > My bad, I should have quoted the syntax rule: > > License identifiers for licenses like [L]GPL with the 'or later' option > are constructed by using a "+" for indicating the 'or later' option.:: > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > // SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ > > Yes, this also predates the notion of "-only", so that is not documented > there. > > > Please look in the files in the LICENSES directory for what all of the > > documented identifiers should look like: > > $ head -n 4 LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > > Oh, so we can no longer look it up in a single place :-( > I'm used to grepping in Documentation/process/license-rules.rst, > as I don't know the exact syntax by heart.
scripts/spdxcheck.py knows where to look (in the LICENSES directory), and gets run by checkpatch.pl as well, so you shouldn't have to look anything up, you can use the tools instead. thanks, greg k-h
