lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses
    Em Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:12:04 +0100 (CET)
    Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> escreveu:

    > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > > > Introcude a MODULE_LICENSE_SPDX macro which flags the module info storage
    > > > as 'SPDXIFY' and let the postprocessor do:
    > >
    > > Shouldn;t this be a FILE_LICENSE_SPDX? I'd also much prefer that over
    > > the nasty C99 comments to start with. And while I'm a bit behind on
    > > email I still haven't managed to find a good rationale for those to
    > > start with.

    Yeah, I also find nasty to have things like this on each C file:

    // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
    /*
    * Copyright ...
    * ...
    */

    Also, one may forget that headers use /**/ and end by doing the wrong
    thing, as a common practice is to just cut-and-paste the same copyright
    header on both C and H files at development time.

    > >
    > > So it would be good to figure this out before people start spamming
    > > the lists with all kinds of mass conversions and checkpatch fixes
    > > for licensing..
    >
    > I tried solving this with a macro in the first place and ran into issues:
    >
    > - Does not work in headers, especially not in UAPI ones

    Make headers_install could replace such macros by SPDX comments when
    installing on userspace.

    > - Breaks in assembly, boot and other special source files. There was no
    > easy solution to that and the result would have been to have macros in
    > some files and not in others.

    At the end, we have different markups, depending on the file type.
    I guess the main problem of using a macro is that a module composed
    by multiple C files will end by defining it multiple times. Not sure
    if gcc would do the right thing on grouping everything altogether
    and producing the right equivalent to MODULE_LICENSE().

    Also, at least on media, I found cases where the same module
    has multiple licenses, e. g. some files that are grouped together on
    a module are GPL v2 only, while others are GPL v2+.

    > So the fallback was to use a comment and Linus decided the '//' style.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > tglx
    >

    Thanks,
    Mauro

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-11-22 12:51    [W:9.028 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site