Re: [PATCH v2] USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:53:54PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 11:28:30AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> >> > It's good to have SPDX identifiers in all files to make it easier to
>> >> > audit the kernel tree for correct licenses.
>> >> >
>> >> > Update the drivers/usb/ and include/linux/usb* files with the correct
>> >> > SPDX license identifier based on the license text in the file itself.
>> >> > The SPDX identifier is a legally binding shorthand, which can be used
>> >> > instead of the full boiler plate text.
>> >> >
>> >> > This work is based on a script and data from Thomas Gleixner, Philippe
>> >> > Ombredanne, and Kate Stewart.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> > Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> > Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >> I noticed several MODULE_LICENSE macros which did not match the headers
>> >> (e.g. "GPL" being used for version 2 only modules) for which I'll send a
>> >> follow-up patch.
>> >>
>> >> Someone should probably write a script for that once the SPDX
>> >> identifiers are in.
>> >
>> > Yes, I think that someone might have a script for that, it will be much
>> > easier to detect these things now.  The issue is that the "v2" marking
>> > came after the original "GPL" marking for MODULE_LICENSE() from what I
>> > remember, so many of those will be wrong.
>>
>> If this can help my [1] tool can detect both header-level licenses-in-comments
>> as well as MODULE_LICENSE macros. Based on that we could reasonably
>> easily craft a script that scans a file and report discrepancies
>> between the two.
>
> That would be great, as there are going to be a lot of these showing up
> soon, as we start adding the SPDX identifiers to the files based on the
> license text and the mis-matches become obvious.

I can run a scancode scan to list modules with a license that does not
match their MODULE_LICENSE (irrespective of whether they have an SPDX id
already or not)
I can then either provide a CSV (or provide an eventually big patch).
Which do you prefer?
What should be the tree to run this on: Yours? usb? Linus's?
tip of the tree or a tag?

If you prefer a patch, what should be the rationale when licenses do not match?
I guess update the MODULE_LICENSE to match the license comment?

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne