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

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:55:26 +0530
Dhaval Shah <dhaval23031987@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:

> Hi Laurent/Mauro/Greg,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > On Thursday, 14 December 2017 23:50:03 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:57:06 +0100 Greg KH escreveu:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, 14 December 2017 22:08:51 EET Greg KH wrote:
> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:05:27PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> >>>> 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 ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Comment on what exactly?  I don't understand the problem here, care to
> >> >>> summarize it?
> >> >>
> >> >> In a nutshell (if I understand it correctly), Dhaval Shah submitted
> >> >> https:// patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102451/ which replaces
> >> >>
> >> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> - *
> >> >> - * 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> in all .c and .h files of the Xilinx V4L2 driver
> >> >> (drivers/media/platform/
> >> >> xilinx). I have reviewed the patch and acked it. Mauro then rejected it,
> >> >> stating that he can't accept a change to license text without an
> >> >> explicit ack from the official driver's maintainers. My position is
> >> >> that such a change doesn't change the license and thus doesn't need to
> >> >> track all copyright holders, and can be merged without an explicit ack
> >> >> from the respective maintainers.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I agree with you, no license is being changed here, and no
> >> > copyright is either.
> >> >
> >> > BUT, I know that most major companies are reviewing this process right
> >> > now.  We have gotten approval from almost all of the major kernel
> >> > developer companies to do this, which is great, and supports this work
> >> > as being acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > So it's nice to ask Xilinx if they object to this happening, which I
> >> > guess Mauro is trying to say here (in not so many words...)  To at least
> >> > give them the heads-up that this is what is going to be going on
> >> > throughout the kernel tree soon, and if they object, it would be good to
> >> > speak up as to why (and if they do, I can put their lawyers in contact
> >> > with some lawyers to explain it all to them.)
> >>
> >> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.
> >>
> >> I don't feel comfortable on signing a patch changing the license text
> >> without giving the copyright owners an opportunity and enough time
> >> to review it and approve, or otherwise comment about such changes.
> >
> > If I understand you and Greg correctly, you would like to get a general
> > approval from Xilinx for SPDX-related changes, but that would be a blanket
> > approval that would cover this and all subsequent similar patches. Is that
> > correct ? That is reasonable for me.
> >
> > In that case, could the fact that commit
> >
> > commit 5fd54ace4721fc5ce2bb5aef6318fcf17f421460
> > Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Fri Nov 3 11:28:30 2017 +0100
> >
> >     USB: add SPDX identifiers to all remaining files in drivers/usb/
> >
> > add SPDX headers to several Xilinx-authored source files constitute such a
> > blanket approval ?
> >
> I have to do anything here or Once, we get approval from the Michal
> Simek(michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx) and Hyun.kwon@xxxxxxxxxx ACK this patch
> then it will go into mainline?

I would wait for their feedback.

Thanks,
Mauro