Re: [PATCH] media: v4l: xilinx: Use SPDX-License-Identifier

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Joe,

(CC'ing Greg and adding context for easier understanding)

On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:54:39 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:32:20 EET Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:28 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 19:05:27 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> Em Fri,  8 Dec 2017 18:05:37 +0530 Dhaval Shah escreveu:
> >>>>> SPDX-License-Identifier is used for the Xilinx Video IP and
> >>>>> related drivers.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi Dhaval,
> >>>> 
> >>>> You're not listed as one of the Xilinx driver maintainers. I'm afraid
> >>>> that, without their explicit acks, sent to the ML, I can't accept a
> >>>> patch touching at the driver's license tags.
> >>> 
> >>> The patch doesn't change the license, I don't see why it would cause
> >>> any issue. Greg isn't listed as the maintainer or copyright holder of
> >>> any of the 10k+ files to which he added an SPDX license header in the
> >>> last kernel release.
> >> 
> >> Adding a comment line that describes an implicit or
> >> explicit license is different than removing the license
> >> text itself.
> > 
> > The SPDX license header is meant to be equivalent to the license text.
> 
> I understand that.
> At a minimum, removing BSD license text is undesirable
> as that license states:
> 
>  *    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>  *      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> etc...

But this patch only removes the following text:

- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- * published by the Free Software Foundation.

and replaces it by the corresponding SPDX header.

> > The only reason why the large SPDX patch didn't touch the whole kernel in
> > one go was that it was easier to split in in multiple chunks.
> 
> Not really, it was scripted.

But still manually reviewed as far as I know.

> > This is no different than not including the full GPL license in every
> > header file but only pointing to it through its name and reference, as
> > every kernel source file does.
> 
> Not every kernel source file had a license text
> or a reference to another license file.

Correct, but the files touched by this patch do.

This issue is in no way specific to linux-media and should be decided upon at 
the top level, not on a per-subsystem basis. Greg, could you comment on this ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart