Re: [PATCH] media: v4l2-core: v4l2-mc: Add SPDX license identifier

[Shuah Khan]

On 01/11/2018 11:42 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Shuah,
> 
> On Thursday, 11 January 2018 17:45:15 EET Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 01/11/2018 05:55 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 10 January 2018 18:35:36 EET Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>> Replace GPL license statement with SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c | 11 +----------
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c
>>>> b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c index 303980b71aae..1297132acd4e
>>>> 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c
>>>> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>
>>> The header doesn't match the existing license.
>>
>> When I added the file, I must have cut and pasted the license statement
>> from another file. More on this below the deleted license lines.
>>
>>> Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, the standard comment style for SPDX
>>> headers in the kernel is //, not /* ... */
>>
>> Looks like we have 3 conventions for SPDX comment style.
>> /* ... */ for headers and # ... for shell scripts and
>> // for .c files.
>>
>> I can update it it and send v2 provided we think the change is inline
>> with the original license.
> 
> Personally I prefer the /* ... */ comment style, but I noticed that Greg used 
> // in his large patch the adds SPDX license headers, so I think we should 
> follow the established practice. I'll let you investigate to find what is 
> preferred :)

Yeah /*...*/ is my preferred as well. Hence  the autopilot change I made
in the first place. I redid a couple of patches already to follow the
// convention and I can do the same here.

> 
>>>>  /*
>>>>  
>>>>   * Media Controller ancillary functions
>>>>   *
>>>>
>>>> @@ -5,16 +6,6 @@
>>>>
>>>>   * Copyright (C) 2016 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>   * Copyright (C) 2006-2010 Nokia Corporation
>>>>   * Copyright (c) 2016 Intel Corporation.
>>>>
>>>> - *
>>>> - *  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>> - *  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>>> - *  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>>>> - *  (at your option) any later version.
>>
>> Are you concerned about the "or (at your option) any later version." part
>> that it doesn't match?
> 
> Yes, that's my concern. I'm personally fine with GPL-2.0-only, but you'll have 
> a hard time contacting all the other copyright holders if you want to 
> relicense this. Good luck getting hold of the appropriate legal department at 
> Nokia :-)

Yeah. I don't think it is beneficial to continue this effort. I am going to not
pursue the patch at this file. Thanks for the review.

thanks,
-- Shuah