On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 12:22:42PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Prior to the adoption of SPDX, it was difficult for tools to determine > the correct license due to incomplete or badly formatted license text. > The SPDX solves this issue, assuming people can correctly spell > "SPDX-License-Identifier" although this assumption is broken in some > places. > > Since scripts/spdxcheck.py parses only lines that exactly matches to > the correct tag, it cannot (should not) detect this kind of error. > > If the correct tag is missing, scripts/checkpatch.pl warns like this: > > WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line * > > So, people should notice it before the patch submission, but in reality > broken tags sometimes slip in. The checkpatch warning is not useful for > checking the committed files globally since large number of files still > have no SPDX tag. > > Also, I am not sure about the legal effect when the SPDX tag is broken. > > Anyway, these typos are absolutely worth fixing. It is pretty easy to > find suspicious lines by grep. > > $ git grep --not -e SPDX-License-Identifier --and -e SPDX- -- \ > :^LICENSES :^scripts/spdxcheck.py :^*/license-rules.rst > arch/arm/kernel/bugs.c:// SPDX-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > drivers/phy/st/phy-stm32-usbphyc.c:// SPDX-Licence-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a77980.c:// SPDX-Lincense-Identifier: GPL 2.0 > lib/test_stackinit.c:// SPDX-Licenses: GPLv2 > sound/soc/codecs/max9759.c:// SPDX-Licence-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>
Very nice catch, thanks! I'll go queue this up now. greg k-h
