lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] media: prefer generic SPDX-License expression to deprecated one
Em Thu, 16 Dec 2021 13:05:10 +0100
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 12:23:11PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:31:32 +0100
> > Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >
> > > Commit 8d395ce6f04b ("media: dvb-core: Convert to SPDX identifier") and
> > > commit e67219b0496b ("media: b2c2: flexcop: Convert to SPDX identifier")
> > > introduce the SPDX-License expression LGPL-2.1-or-later for some files.
> > >
> > > The command ./scripts/spdxcheck.py warns:
> > >
> > > drivers/media/dvb-core/dmxdev.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > > drivers/media/dvb-core/dvb_demux.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > > drivers/media/dvb-core/dvbdev.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > > drivers/media/common/b2c2/flexcop.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> > >
> > > The preferred SPDX expression for LGPL-2.1 or any later version is with
> > > the more generic "+"-extension for "any later version", so: LGPL-2.1+
> > >
> > > This makes spdxcheck happy again.
> >
> > It doesn't sound right to apply such patch.
> >
> > See, the latest SPDX version uses LGPL-2.1-or-later:
> >
> > https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1-or-later.html
> >
> > And it deprecated LGPL-2.1+:
> >
> > https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1+.html
> >
> > So, those files are perfectly fine with regards to SPDX, and are
> > adherent to its latest specs. We do need the latest specs on media,
> > as our documentation is under GFDL-1.1-no-invariants-or-later, which
> > only exists on newer SPDX versions.
> >
> > So, the right thing to do here seems to fix spdxcheck.py, letting it
> > either allow both variants (as we probably don't want to replace it
> > everywhere) or to emit a warning if the deprecated ones are used.
>
> No, we are not going to add a "warning" for older SPDX versions like
> that, otherwise the majority of the kernel will start spitting out
> warnings.
>
> Let's worry about actually fixing all of the files that do NOT have SPDX
> tags before even considering to move to a newer version of the spec. We
> started this work before the FSF made the crazy change to their tags,
> let's not worry about any deprecated issues at the moment.

Yeah, agreed.

Thanks,
Mauro

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-16 13:16    [W:0.119 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site