[PATCH v2 2/2] docs: Note new requirement to include a SPDX line

[Veronika Kabatova]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Finucane" <stephen at that.guru>
> To: "Veronika Kabatova" <vkabatov at redhat.com>
> Cc: patchwork at lists.ozlabs.org
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 11:24:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] docs: Note new requirement to include a SPDX line
> 
> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 13:34 -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Stephen Finucane" <stephen at that.guru>
> > > To: patchwork at lists.ozlabs.org
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 7:19:45 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] docs: Note new requirement to include a SPDX
> > > line
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 18:17 +0100, Stephen Finucane wrote:
> > > > Add some wording around the requirement to include this line instead
> > > > of
> > > > the license header. Also note the requirement that all code be
> > > > GPLv2-licensed and add a CONTRIBUTING document, which GitHub likes.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen at that.guru>
> > > > Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja at axtens.net>
> > > 
> > > Looks like patch 1/2 (or the earlier v1 rendition) didn't make it to
> > > the list. It's basically the following diff for all files:
> > > 
> > >    -# This file is part of the Patchwork package.
> > >    -#
> > >    -# Patchwork 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.
> > >    -#
> > >    -# Patchwork is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > >    -# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > >    -# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> > >    -# GNU General Public License for more details.
> > >    -#
> > >    -# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> > >    -# along with Patchwork; if not, write to the Free Software
> > >    -# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
> > >    02111-1307
> > >    USA
> > >    +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > 
> > 
> > This seems to be the same problem why my first tagging patch didn't make it
> > to the list - the email is too large and doesn't fit the mailing list
> > thresholds. Given how many files contain the preamble, the patch would need
> > to be split a lot to get it to the list.
> 
> Yup, that's what I'm thinking. It's trivial though so unless anyone
> else wants to review this though, I'll just wait for Daniel to take a
> look and then merge it.
> 

I actually do have a comment. The text of the license is GPL-2.0+, while the
new identifier and documentation changes imply GPL-2.0-only. The SPDX page
contains both licenses and the differences between them (see the "Standard
License Header" sections [1] [2] and that the GPL-2.0+ is the one used with
PW).

So, if the changes should be equivalent, GPL-2.0+ identifier (and appropriate
documentation wording) should be used instead. If part of the change is to
limit the license to GPL-2.0-only (which is fine by me), then the commit
message should say so, since it's easy to miss the difference.


Please let me know if my understanding about the topic is correct or if I
missed any discussions about the license change.

Veronika


[1] https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-only.html
[2] https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html


> Stephen
> 
> > Veronika
> > 
> > > Stephen
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Patchwork mailing list
> > > Patchwork at lists.ozlabs.org
> > > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
> > > 
> 
> 
>