Re: [PATCH 0/6] Address issues with SPDX requirements and PEP-263

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 11:17:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Markus Heiser wrote:
> > Am 07.09.19 um 20:04 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> > > No idea. I would actually prefer to just remove the restriction, and let
> > > the SPDX header to be anywhere inside the first comment block inside a
> > > file [2].
> > > [2] I *suspect* that the restriction was added in order to make
> > >      ./scripts/spdxcheck.py to run faster and to avoid false positives.
> > >      Right now, if the maximum limit is removed (or set to a very high
> > >      value), there will be one false positive:
> 
> Nope. The intention was to have a well define place and format instead of
> everyone and his dog deciding to put it somewhere. SPDX is not intended to
> replace the existing licensing mess with some other randomly placed and
> formatted licensing mess.

I find the current style quite unaesthetic:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
/*
 *  linux/mm/memory.c
 *
 *  Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994  Linus Torvalds
 */

I'd much rather see

/*
 * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994  Linus Torvalds
 */

but I appreciate the desire to force it to be on the first line if at all
possible.