Re: [patch V5 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Tue Jun 12 2018 - 15:28:13 EST
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Yang Li wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Sorry for the spam. I somehow missed to refresh the patch before generating
> > the mbox. Find below the correct version of that one which has ALL braces
> > removed which we don't need.
> I'm not sure how we reached the conclusion that we should remove ALL
> braces? I cannot find related discussion in the archive except for
> the "WITH" case.
> This is conflicting with the current SPDX spec at
> https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version quoted below and
> also the explenation in your own file.
> Quote from SPDX spec 2.1: More expressive composite license
> expressions can be constructed using "OR", "AND", and "WITH" operators
> similar to constructing mathematical expressions using arithmetic
> operators. For the Tag:value format, any license expression that
> consists of more than one license identifier and/or LicenseRef, should
> be encapsulated by parentheses: "( )".
This is not relevant here:
For the Tag:value format, .....
The kernel does not generate SPDX files in Tag:value format. The kernel
uses SPDX license identifiers to reflect the actual license of a file.
> > + A <SPDX License Expression> is either an SPDX short form license
> > + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or the combination of two
> > + SPDX short form license identifiers separated by "WITH" when a license
> > + exception applies. When multiple licenses apply, an expression consists
> > + of keywords "AND", "OR" separating sub-expressions and surrounded by
> > + "(", ")" .
> Conflicting with the example
No, The keyword is 'separating sub-expressions'. It does not say license
So these examples are completely compliant with the documentation:
> > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note
> > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note
> > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause
Two license (exception) identifiers plus a operator. That's perfectly well
> > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT
This is actually a case where you need parentheses and they separate the
sub-expression 'ID with EXC'.
Adding extra parentheses around any simple 'ID operator [ID|EXC]'
expression is really overkill and does not make stuff more
readable. Likewise in programming languages. Why would anyone write:
C et al.: a = (b || c);
Pyhton: a = (b and c)