On 28/07/2025 17.50, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
From: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place"
anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here.
But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's
rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX
license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser*
General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the
right choice here.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
---
v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier
If you look at the LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 file, it says to use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
as the kernel's SPDX level is older than you might think.
Also, doesn't the scripts/spdxcheck.pl tool object to the "or-later"
when you run it on the tree with this change in it?
Ugh, sorry, no, it lists both, the tool should have been fine. I was
reading the text of the file, not the headers at the top of it. My
fault.
By the way, is there a reason why LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 suggests only
the old variant:
For 'GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or any later
version' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
... while LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 suggests both:
For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
or
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
That looks somewhat inconsistent to me... Should the LGPL files be updated?
Thomas
