Re: [GIT PULL] SPDX update for 5.2-rc3 - round 1

[Greg KH]

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 09:17:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg, Thomas,
> 
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:49 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The following changes since commit cd6c84d8f0cdc911df435bb075ba22ce3c605b07:
> >
> >   Linux 5.2-rc2 (2019-05-26 16:49:19 -0700)
> >
> > are available in the Git repository at:
> >
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git tags/spdx-5.2-rc3-1
> >
> > for you to fetch changes up to 96ac6d435100450f0565708d9b885ea2a7400e0a:
> >
> >   treewide: Add SPDX license identifier - Kbuild (2019-05-30 11:32:33 -0700)
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > SPDX update for 5.2-rc3, round 1
> >
> > Here is another set of reviewed patches that adds SPDX tags to different
> > kernel files, based on a set of rules that are being used to parse the
> > comments to try to determine that the license of the file is
> > "GPL-2.0-or-later" or "GPL-2.0-only".  Only the "obvious" versions of
> > these matches are included here, a number of "non-obvious" variants of
> > text have been found but those have been postponed for later review and
> > analysis.
> >
> > There is also a patch in here to add the proper SPDX header to a bunch
> > of Kbuild files that we have missed in the past due to new files being
> > added and forgetting that Kbuild uses two different file names for
> > Makefiles.  This issue was reported by the Kbuild maintainer.
> >
> > These patches have been out for review on the linux-spdx@vger mailing
> > list, and while they were created by automatic tools, they were
> > hand-verified by a bunch of different people, all whom names are on the
> > patches are reviewers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I'm sorry, but as long[*] as this does not conform to
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst, I have to provide my:
> NAked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> [*] The obvious solution is to update Documentation/process/license-rules.rst,
>     as people have asked before.

I don't understand, what does not conform?  We are trying _to_ conform
to that file, what did we do wrong?

thanks,

greg k-h