On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:00 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > spdx
>
> Is there something preventing this from being applied
> to some tree included in -next?
Nothing than me being busy and not coming around to fix the last review
comments.
On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:00 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> spdx
Is there something preventing this from being applied
to some tree included in -next?
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 12:03:55 +0100
Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> Jonathan,
> As an English Major, does this make sense to you? (using boilerplate
> as a single word, not the kitten thing)
Surely you're not calling me an English major? :)
Anyway, I would use "boilerplate" in a setting like this, a
Thomas,
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
> +The common way of expressing the license of a source file is to add the
> +matching boiler plate text into the top comment of the file. Due to
I would likely go with boilerplate instead. Unless you are talking
about the r
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Heiko Carstens
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> +3. Syntax:
>> +
>> + A is either an SPDX short form license
>> + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or when multiple licenses
>> + apply, an expression consis
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> +3. Syntax:
> +
> + A is either an SPDX short form license
> + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or when multiple licenses
> + apply, an expression consisting of keywords "AND", "OR", and "WITH"
> + separating SPDX
Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses
should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well
as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to
refer to (LICENSES/).
Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas
Pavel:
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2017-11-17 15:06:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET)
>> Thomas Gleixner escreveu:
>>
>> > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly
>> >
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
>
> Let me see if I got it straight. At drivers/media/common/siano/smsir.c,
> we have, currently:
.. snip snip ..
> With is completely out of standard. I'd like to add an SPDX tag there
> and, while doing that, adjust the comments.
>
Em Sat, 25 Nov 2017 09:30:46 -1000
Linus Torvalds escreveu:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > There's logical place in the comment, and it should look like this:
> >
> > /*
> > * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver
> > *
> > * SPDX-License-Identi
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> There's logical place in the comment, and it should look like this:
>
> /*
> * Driver for SMSC USB3503 USB 2.0 hub controller driver
> *
> * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> * Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Dongjin Kim (tobet...@gmail.co
On Sat 2017-11-25 09:11:58, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > That does not sound like he was deciding between /* */ and //. And
> > actually this was in context of files with no existing license. You
> > made the ugly patches. Stop hiding behind
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> That does not sound like he was deciding between /* */ and //. And
> actually this was in context of files with no existing license. You
> made the ugly patches. Stop hiding behind Linus.
No, Linus happily stands up for //.
I really don't
On Wed 2017-11-22 14:48:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET)
> > Thomas Gleixner escreveu:
> >
> > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:4
On Fri 2017-11-17 15:06:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET)
> Thomas Gleixner escreveu:
>
> > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly
> > identify file licenses
> > From: Thomas Gleixner
> > Date: Fri, 10
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET)
> Thomas Gleixner escreveu:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Introcude a MODULE_LIC
Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:23:29 +0100
Christoph Hellwig escreveu:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong
> > thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright
> > header
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:51:17AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong
> thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright
> header on both C and H files at development time.
Yes.
> Make headers_install
Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner escreveu:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage
> > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage
> > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do:
>
> Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much pr
Hi Thomas,
> Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses
> should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well
> as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to
> refer to (LICENSES/).
I've given this a once over now, cro
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage
> as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do:
Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much prefer that over
the nasty C99 comments to start with. An
Mauro,
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET)
> Thomas Gleixner escreveu:
>
> > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly
> > identify file licenses
> > From: Thomas Gleixner
> > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:
Hi Thomas,
Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner escreveu:
> Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly
> identify file licenses
> From: Thomas Gleixner
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100
>
> Add a file to the Documentation directory to d
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Kate Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > + The files in this directory the full license text and `Metatags`_.
> >
> Missing verb. Possibly "contain"?
>
> The files in this directory contain the full license text and `Metatags`_.
Y
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly
> identify file licenses
> From: Thomas Gleixner
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100
>
> Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file license
Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly
identify file licenses
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100
Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses
should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier,
27 matches
Mail list logo
