Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-18 Thread Martin Kepplinger
On 2017-11-18 11:17, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:53:53PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:41:10 +0100 >> Greg KH wrote: >> I'll fold this in, in the thread here. I guess this change is what Greg had in mind? Or would you prefer having including SPDX

Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-18 Thread Greg KH
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:43:46AM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote: > But Greg, people are listening to you. Please don't give advice in > directions that are not clearly correct for Linux. You know you could > have simply ack'd the initial mistake-fix in that case. It wouldn't have > hurt anybody.

Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-18 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:53:53PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:41:10 +0100 > Greg KH wrote: > > > > I'll fold this in, in the thread here. I guess this change is what Greg > > > had in mind? Or would you prefer having including SPDX and removing > > > permission stateme

Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-18 Thread Martin Kepplinger
On 2017-11-18 01:13, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:43:46 +0100 > Martin Kepplinger wrote: > >> But Greg, people are listening to you. Please don't give advice in >> directions that are not clearly correct for Linux. You know you could >> have simply ack'd the initial mistake-fix

Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-17 Thread Jonathan Corbet
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:43:46 +0100 Martin Kepplinger wrote: > But Greg, people are listening to you. Please don't give advice in > directions that are not clearly correct for Linux. You know you could > have simply ack'd the initial mistake-fix in that case. It wouldn't have > hurt anybody. Sigh

Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-17 Thread Martin Kepplinger
On 2017-11-17 23:53, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:41:10 +0100 > Greg KH wrote: > >>> I'll fold this in, in the thread here. I guess this change is what Greg >>> had in mind? Or would you prefer having including SPDX and removing >>> permission statement seperately? >> >> I ha

Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-17 Thread Jonathan Corbet
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:41:10 +0100 Greg KH wrote: > > I'll fold this in, in the thread here. I guess this change is what Greg > > had in mind? Or would you prefer having including SPDX and removing > > permission statement seperately? > > I have been doing them in 2 steps, but only because the

Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-16 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Martin Kepplinger wrote: > This replaces license permission statements that include a wrong postal > address of the FSF with only SPDX license identifiers; in the samples > directory. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger FWIW, looking all good to me! Reviewed-by

Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

2017-11-16 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:44:11PM +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote: > This replaces license permission statements that include a wrong postal > address of the FSF with only SPDX license identifiers; in the samples > directory. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger > --- > > I'll fold this in, in t