| Message ID | alpine.DEB.2.20.1712282315030.1899@nanos (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Deferred, archived |
| Headers | show |
Thomas, On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Sorry for the spam. I somehow missed to refresh the patch before generating > the mbox. Find below the correct version of that one which has ALL braces > removed which we don't need. > > Thanks, > > tglx > > 8<-------------------------- > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100 > > Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses > should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well > as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to > refer to (LICENSES/). > > Thanks to Kate and Greg for review and editing and Jonas for the > suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> > Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> > Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > --- > Documentation/index.rst | 12 + > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst | 370 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 382 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/license-rules.rst > > --- a/Documentation/index.rst > +++ b/Documentation/index.rst > @@ -13,6 +13,18 @@ documents into a coherent whole. Please > documentation are welcome; join the linux-doc list at vger.kernel.org if > you want to help out. > > +Licensing documentation > +----------------------- > + > +The following describes the license of the Linux kernel source code > +(GPLv2), how to properly mark the license of individual files in the source > +tree, as well as links to the full license text. > + > +.. toctree:: > + :maxdepth: 2 > + > + process/license-rules.rst > + > User-oriented documentation > --------------------------- > > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > + > +Linux kernel licensing rules > +============================ > + > +The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public > +License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as published by the Free Software > +Foundation, and provided in the COPYING file. This documentation file is > +not meant to replace the COPYING file, but provides a description of how > +each source file should be annotated to make the licensing it is governed > +under clear and unambiguous. > + > +The license in the COPYING file applies to the kernel source as a whole, > +though individual source files can have a different license which is > +required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0:: > + > + GPL-1.0+ : GNU General Public License v1.0 or later > + GPL-2.0+ : GNU General Public License v2.0 or later > + LGPL-2.0 : GNU Library General Public License v2 only > + LGPL-2.0+ : GNU Library General Public License v2 or later > + LGPL-2.1 : GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 only > + LGPL-2.1+ : GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later > + > +Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license, > +e.g. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a > +permissive license like BSD, MIT etc. > + > +The User-space API (UAPI) header files, which describe the interface of > +user-space programs to the kernel are a special case. According to the > +note in the kernel COPYING file, the syscall interface is a clear boundary, > +which does not extend the GPL requirements to any software which uses it to > +communicate with the kernel. Because the UAPI headers must be includable > +into any source files which create an executable running on the Linux > +kernel, the exception must be documented by a special license expression. > + > +The common way of expressing the license of a source file is to add the > +matching boilerplate text into the top comment of the file. Due to > +formatting, typos etc. these "boilerplates" are hard to validate for > +tools which are used in the context of license compliance. > + > +An alternative to boilerplate text is the use of Software Package Data > +Exchange (SPDX) license identifiers in each source file. SPDX license > +identifiers are machine parsable and precise shorthands for the license > +under which the content of the file is contributed. SPDX license > +identifiers are managed by the SPDX Workgroup at the Linux Foundation and > +have been agreed on by partners throughout the industry, tool vendors, and > +legal teams. For further information see https://spdx.org/ > + > +The Linux kernel requires the precise SPDX identifier in all source files. > +The valid identifiers used in the kernel are explained in the section > +`License identifiers`_ and have been retrieved from the official SPDX > +license list at https://spdx.org/licenses/ along with the license texts. > + > +License identifier syntax > +------------------------- > + > +1. Placement: > + > + The SPDX license identifier in kernel files shall be added at the first > + possible line in a file which can contain a comment. For the majority > + or files this is the first line, except for scripts which require the > + '#!PATH_TO_INTERPRETER' in the first line. For those scripts the SPDX > + identifier goes into the second line. > + > +| > + > +2. Style: > + > + The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment. The comment > + style depends on the file type:: > + > + C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> > + C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */ > + ASM: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */ > + scripts: # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> > + .rst: .. SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> > + .dts{i}: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> > + > + If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the > + appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used. This > + is the reason for having the "/\* \*/" style comment in C header > + files. There was build breakage observed with generated .lds files where > + 'ld' failed to parse the C++ comment. This has been fixed by now, but > + there are still older assembler tools which cannot handle C++ style > + comments. > + > +| > + > +3. Syntax: > + > + A <SPDX License Expression> is either an SPDX short form license > + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or the combination of two > + SPDX short form license identifiers separated by "WITH" when a license > + exception applies. When multiple licenses apply, an expression consists > + of keywords "AND", "OR" separating sub-expressions and surrounded by > + "(", ")" . > + > + License identifiers for licenses like [L]GPL with the 'or later' option > + are constructed by using a "+" for indicating the 'or later' option.:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ > + > + WITH should be used when there is a modifier to a license needed. > + For example, the linux kernel UAPI files use the expression:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note > + > + Other examples using WITH exceptions found in the kernel are:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH mif-exception > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH GCC-exception-2.0 > + > + Exceptions can only be used with particular License identifiers. The > + valid License identifiers are listed in the tags of the exception text > + file. For details see the point `Exceptions`_ in the chapter `License > + identifiers`_. > + > + OR should be used if the file is dual licensed and only one license is > + to be selected. For example, some dtsi files are available under dual > + licenses:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause > + > + Examples from the kernel for license expressions in dual licensed files:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR Apache-2.0 > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MPL-1.1 > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause OR OpenSSL > + > + AND should be used if the file has multiple licenses whose terms all > + apply to use the file. For example, if code is inherited from another > + project and permission has been given to put it in the kernel, but the > + original license terms need to remain in effect:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT > + > + Another other example where both sets of license terms need to be > + adhered to is:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ AND LGPL-2.1+ > + > +License identifiers > +------------------- > + > +The licenses currently used, as well as the licenses for code added to the > +kernel, can be broken down into: > + > +1. _`Preferred licenses`: > + > + Whenever possible these licenses should be used as they are known to be > + fully compatible and widely used. These licenses are available from the > + directory:: > + > + LICENSES/preferred/ > + > + in the kernel source tree. > + > + The files in this directory contain the full license text and > + `Metatags`_. The file names are identical to the SPDX license > + identifier which shall be used for the license in source files. > + > + Examples:: > + > + LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 > + > + Contains the GPL version 2 license text and the required metatags:: > + > + LICENSES/preferred/MIT > + > + Contains the MIT license text and the required metatags > + > + _`Metatags`: > + > + The following meta tags must be available in a license file: > + > + - Valid-License-Identifier: > + > + One or more lines which declare which License Identifiers are valid > + inside the project to reference this particular license text. Usually > + this is a single valid identifier, but e.g. for licenses with the 'or > + later' options two identifiers are valid. > + > + - SPDX-URL: > + > + The URL of the SPDX page which contains additional information related > + to the license. > + > + - Usage-Guidance: > + > + Freeform text for usage advice. The text must include correct examples > + for the SPDX license identifiers as they should be put into source > + files according to the `License identifier syntax`_ guidelines. > + > + - License-Text: > + > + All text after this tag is treated as the original license text > + > + File format examples:: > + > + Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > + Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html > + Usage-Guide: > + To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX > + tag/value pairs into a comment according to the placement > + guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. > + For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use: > + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > + For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use: > + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > + License-Text: > + Full license text > + > + :: > + > + SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT > + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html > + Usage-Guide: > + To use this license in source code, put the following SPDX > + tag/value pair into a comment according to the placement > + guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. > + SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT > + License-Text: > + Full license text > + > +| > + > +2. Not recommended licenses: > + > + These licenses should only be used for existing code or for importing > + code from a different project. These licenses are available from the > + directory:: > + > + LICENSES/other/ > + > + in the kernel source tree. > + > + The files in this directory contain the full license text and > + `Metatags`_. The file names are identical to the SPDX license > + identifier which shall be used for the license in source files. > + > + Examples:: > + > + LICENSES/other/ISC > + > + Contains the Internet Systems Consortium license text and the required > + metatags:: > + > + LICENSES/other/ZLib > + > + Contains the ZLIB license text and the required metatags. > + > + Metatags: > + > + The metatag requirements for 'other' licenses are identical to the > + requirements of the `Preferred licenses`_. > + > + File format example:: > + > + Valid-License-Identifier: ISC > + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html > + Usage-Guide: > + Usage of this license in the kernel for new code is discouraged > + and it should solely be used for importing code from an already > + existing project. > + To use this license in source code, put the following SPDX > + tag/value pair into a comment according to the placement > + guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. > + SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC > + License-Text: > + Full license text > + > +| > + > +3. _`Exceptions`: > + > + Some licenses can be amended with exceptions which grant certain rights > + which the original license does not. These exceptions are available > + from the directory:: > + > + LICENSES/exceptions/ > + > + in the kernel source tree. The files in this directory contain the full > + exception text and the required `Exception Metatags`_. > + > + Examples:: > + > + LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note > + > + Contains the Linux syscall exception as documented in the COPYING > + file of the Linux kernel, which is used for UAPI header files. > + e.g. /\* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note \*/:: > + > + LICENSES/exceptions/GCC-exception-2.0 > + > + Contains the GCC 'linking exception' which allows to link any binary > + independent of its license against the compiled version of a file marked > + with this exception. This is required for creating runnable executables > + from source code which is not compatible with the GPL. > + > + _`Exception Metatags`: > + > + The following meta tags must be available in an exception file: > + > + - SPDX-Exception-Identifier: > + > + One exception identifier which can be used with SPDX license > + identifiers. > + > + - SPDX-URL: > + > + The URL of the SPDX page which contains additional information related > + to the exception. > + > + - SPDX-Licenses: > + > + A comma separated list of SPDX license identifiers for which the > + exception can be used. > + > + - Usage-Guidance: > + > + Freeform text for usage advice. The text must be followed by correct > + examples for the SPDX license identifiers as they should be put into > + source files according to the `License identifier syntax`_ guidelines. > + > + - Exception-Text: > + > + All text after this tag is treated as the original exception text > + > + File format examples:: > + > + SPDX-Exception-Identifier: Linux-syscall-note > + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-syscall-note.html > + SPDX-Licenses: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+, GPL-1.0+, LGPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0+, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-2.1+ > + Usage-Guidance: > + This exception is used together with one of the above SPDX-Licenses > + to mark user-space API (uapi) header files so they can be included > + into non GPL compliant user-space application code. > + To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the > + identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag: > + SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX-License> WITH Linux-syscall-note > + Exception-Text: > + Full exception text > + > + :: > + > + SPDX-Exception-Identifier: GCC-exception-2.0 > + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GCC-exception-2.0.html > + SPDX-Licenses: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+ > + Usage-Guidance: > + The "GCC Runtime Library exception 2.0" is used together with one > + of the above SPDX-Licenses for code imported from the GCC runtime > + library. > + To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the > + identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag: > + SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX-License> WITH GCC-exception-2.0 > + Exception-Text: > + Full exception text > + > + > +All SPDX license identifiers and exceptions must have a corresponding file > +in the LICENSE subdirectories. This is required to allow tool > +verification (e.g. checkpatch.pl) and to have the licenses ready to read > +and extract right from the source, which is recommended by various FOSS > +organizations, e.g. the `FSFE REUSE initiative <https://reuse.software/>`_. My review still stands in this updated/corrected version. Thanks! Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
On Fri, 2017-12-29 at 14:21 +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > Thomas, > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Sorry for the spam. I somehow missed to refresh the patch before generating > > the mbox. Find below the correct version of that one which has ALL braces > > removed which we don't need. Has it been legally reviewed and accepted that removal of the BSD license text from individual source files is appropriate and meets the legal requirements of following the BSD license on a per-file basis? And if so, who did this review? Is there any license that does not allow removal of the license text and does not allow simple substitution of the SPDX license identifier in each individual file? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:19:59AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > Has it been legally reviewed and accepted that removal > of the BSD license text from individual source files is > appropriate and meets the legal requirements of > following the BSD license on a per-file basis? > > And if so, who did this review? > > Is there any license that does not allow removal of the > license text and does not allow simple substitution of > the SPDX license identifier in each individual file? The work to use SPDX lines instead of individual licenses was done by Greg K-H in close consultation with Linux Foundation counsels, so I would assume that they did look at that particular issue. IANAL, but I've talked to lawyers about this issue, and in my experience if you talk to three lawyers you will easily get six opinions. As far as I know, none of the licenses explicitly say copyright license must be on each file. Just that the distribution of source must include the copyright and license statement. Exactly how that is done is not explicitly specified. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:19:59AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >> >> Has it been legally reviewed and accepted that removal >> of the BSD license text from individual source files is >> appropriate and meets the legal requirements of >> following the BSD license on a per-file basis? >> >> And if so, who did this review? >> >> Is there any license that does not allow removal of the >> license text and does not allow simple substitution of >> the SPDX license identifier in each individual file? > > The work to use SPDX lines instead of individual licenses was done by > Greg K-H in close consultation with Linux Foundation counsels, so I > would assume that they did look at that particular issue. This is correct. And this is in addition to the discussion in the SPDX group at the LF (that includes several FOSS-savvy and prominent FOSS lawyers) that did design the SPDX spec. > IANAL, but I've talked to lawyers about this issue, and in my > experience if you talk to three lawyers you will easily get six > opinions. And that's on a good day: you may get more than six on a bad one. But on the other hand, they tend also to defer to standards, and established community norms. > As far as I know, none of the licenses explicitly say > copyright license must be on each file. Just that the distribution of > source must include the copyright and license statement. Exactly how > that is done is not explicitly specified. This is also my take. What is done here is not much different than refactoring duplicated code so it leaves in a single place: - by "value" at the root in COPYING and in the Documentation. - by "reference" in the code proper as SPDX ids. Therefore essential and common requirements to include the license text is fulfilled in the kernel. Note that there are a few offenders that will need to clean up their acts as they came up will both long and "un-removable and un-alterable" crazy legalese blurbs [1] prefix this: "DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER" These will have to be taken care on a case by case basis. These are pretty stupid and IMHO should have never been allowed to be added to the kernel in the first place and are ugly warts. It could very well be that these are not really GPL-compliant notices FWIW: keeping notices and copyrights is quite different from a restriction of altering things by moving them around which is exactly what is happening with the SPDX-ification here. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs.h?h=v4.15-rc5#n5
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:17:54PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > > As far as I know, none of the licenses explicitly say > > copyright license must be on each file. Just that the distribution of > > source must include the copyright and license statement. Exactly how > > that is done is not explicitly specified. > > This is also my take. What is done here is not much different than > refactoring duplicated code so it leaves in a single place: > > - by "value" at the root in COPYING and in the Documentation. > - by "reference" in the code proper as SPDX ids. > > Therefore essential and common requirements to include the license > text is fulfilled in the kernel. > > Note that there are a few offenders that will need to clean up their > acts as they came up will both long and "un-removable and > un-alterable" crazy legalese blurbs [1] prefix this: > > "DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER" > > These will have to be taken care on a case by case basis. These are > pretty stupid and IMHO should have never been allowed to be added to > the kernel in the first place and are ugly warts. It could very well > be that these are not really GPL-compliant notices FWIW: keeping > notices and copyrights is quite different from a restriction of > altering things by moving them around which is exactly what is > happening with the SPDX-ification here. > > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs.h?h=v4.15-rc5#n5 Lustre is now owned by Intel so I suspect that some throat clearing noises in the right direction could easily take care of the issue with those files.... - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:19:59AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > Has it been legally reviewed and accepted that removal > > of the BSD license text from individual source files is > > appropriate and meets the legal requirements of > > following the BSD license on a per-file basis? > > > > And if so, who did this review? > > > > Is there any license that does not allow removal of the > > license text and does not allow simple substitution of > > the SPDX license identifier in each individual file? > > The work to use SPDX lines instead of individual licenses was done by > Greg K-H in close consultation with Linux Foundation counsels, so I > would assume that they did look at that particular issue. > > IANAL, but I've talked to lawyers about this issue, and in my > experience if you talk to three lawyers you will easily get six > opinions. As far as I know, none of the licenses explicitly say > copyright license must be on each file. Just that the distribution of > source must include the copyright and license statement. Exactly how > that is done is not explicitly specified. Aside of that we are not removing anything, except the obvious one liners like This file is licensed under GPLV2 For licensing see COPYING and similar constructs. Replacing the full boilerplate text is done by talking to the respective copyright holders, which usually involves lawyers when the copyright holder is a corporate. See for example: commit 987b154983f0e70b02edf6fc75fcc2f6e6d670b9 Author: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> Date: Mon Dec 4 10:57:02 2017 +0100 s390: Remove redudant license text where the removal has been done by IBM in files copyrighted by IBM. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Dec 29, 2017, at 9:15 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:17:54PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >>> As far as I know, none of the licenses explicitly say >>> copyright license must be on each file. Just that the distribution of >>> source must include the copyright and license statement. Exactly how >>> that is done is not explicitly specified. >> >> This is also my take. What is done here is not much different than >> refactoring duplicated code so it leaves in a single place: >> >> - by "value" at the root in COPYING and in the Documentation. >> - by "reference" in the code proper as SPDX ids. >> >> Therefore essential and common requirements to include the license >> text is fulfilled in the kernel. >> >> Note that there are a few offenders that will need to clean up their >> acts as they came up will both long and "un-removable and >> un-alterable" crazy legalese blurbs [1] prefix this: >> >> "DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER" >> >> These will have to be taken care on a case by case basis. These are >> pretty stupid and IMHO should have never been allowed to be added to >> the kernel in the first place and are ugly warts. It could very well >> be that these are not really GPL-compliant notices FWIW: keeping >> notices and copyrights is quite different from a restriction of >> altering things by moving them around which is exactly what is >> happening with the SPDX-ification here. >> >> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs.h?h=v4.15-rc5#n5 > > Lustre is now owned by Intel so I suspect that some throat clearing > noises in the right direction could easily take care of the issue with > those files.... To correct this, the copyright on the Lustre code is not owned by Intel. The copyright on the original Lustre code was transferred from Oracle to Seagate a few years ago, but the code that Whamcloud->Intel used for their release (which is what the kernel client is based on) was forked many years ago from the Oracle version (all under GPL). There is no single copyright holder anymore, since there is no copyright assignment for new contributions and it is copyright by whomever contributed it, as with the kernel itself. I don't see any issue with leaving those header blocks as-is? Cheers, Andreas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Sorry for the spam. I somehow missed to refresh the patch before generating > the mbox. Find below the correct version of that one which has ALL braces > removed which we don't need. Hi Thomas, I'm not sure how we reached the conclusion that we should remove ALL braces? I cannot find related discussion in the archive except for the "WITH" case. This is conflicting with the current SPDX spec at https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version quoted below and also the explenation in your own file. Quote from SPDX spec 2.1: More expressive composite license expressions can be constructed using "OR", "AND", and "WITH" operators similar to constructing mathematical expressions using arithmetic operators. For the Tag:value format, any license expression that consists of more than one license identifier and/or LicenseRef, should be encapsulated by parentheses: "( )". > + > + A <SPDX License Expression> is either an SPDX short form license > + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or the combination of two > + SPDX short form license identifiers separated by "WITH" when a license > + exception applies. When multiple licenses apply, an expression consists > + of keywords "AND", "OR" separating sub-expressions and surrounded by > + "(", ")" . Conflicting with the example > + > + License identifiers for licenses like [L]GPL with the 'or later' option > + are constructed by using a "+" for indicating the 'or later' option.:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ > + > + WITH should be used when there is a modifier to a license needed. > + For example, the linux kernel UAPI files use the expression:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note > + > + Other examples using WITH exceptions found in the kernel are:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH mif-exception > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH GCC-exception-2.0 > + > + Exceptions can only be used with particular License identifiers. The > + valid License identifiers are listed in the tags of the exception text > + file. For details see the point `Exceptions`_ in the chapter `License > + identifiers`_. > + > + OR should be used if the file is dual licensed and only one license is > + to be selected. For example, some dtsi files are available under dual > + licenses:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause > + > + Examples from the kernel for license expressions in dual licensed files:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR Apache-2.0 > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MPL-1.1 > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause OR OpenSSL > + > + AND should be used if the file has multiple licenses whose terms all > + apply to use the file. For example, if code is inherited from another > + project and permission has been given to put it in the kernel, but the > + original license terms need to remain in effect:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT > + > + Another other example where both sets of license terms need to be > + adhered to is:: > + > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ AND LGPL-2.1+ > + -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Yang, On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Yang Li wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Sorry for the spam. I somehow missed to refresh the patch before generating > > the mbox. Find below the correct version of that one which has ALL braces > > removed which we don't need. > I'm not sure how we reached the conclusion that we should remove ALL > braces? I cannot find related discussion in the archive except for > the "WITH" case. https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAOFm3uEpM_tBErkOvqghcy+wbw0i4mSnafPBRC3HYZVQjsSyMw@mail.gmail.com > This is conflicting with the current SPDX spec at > https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version quoted below and > also the explenation in your own file. > > Quote from SPDX spec 2.1: More expressive composite license > expressions can be constructed using "OR", "AND", and "WITH" operators > similar to constructing mathematical expressions using arithmetic > operators. For the Tag:value format, any license expression that > consists of more than one license identifier and/or LicenseRef, should > be encapsulated by parentheses: "( )". This is not relevant here: For the Tag:value format, ..... The kernel does not generate SPDX files in Tag:value format. The kernel uses SPDX license identifiers to reflect the actual license of a file. > > + A <SPDX License Expression> is either an SPDX short form license > > + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or the combination of two > > + SPDX short form license identifiers separated by "WITH" when a license > > + exception applies. When multiple licenses apply, an expression consists > > + of keywords "AND", "OR" separating sub-expressions and surrounded by > > + "(", ")" . > > Conflicting with the example No, The keyword is 'separating sub-expressions'. It does not say license identifiers. So these examples are completely compliant with the documentation: > > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note > > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note > > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause Two license (exception) identifiers plus a operator. That's perfectly well defined. > > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT This is actually a case where you need parentheses and they separate the sub-expression 'ID with EXC'. Adding extra parentheses around any simple 'ID operator [ID|EXC]' expression is really overkill and does not make stuff more readable. Likewise in programming languages. Why would anyone write: C et al.: a = (b || c); Pyhton: a = (b and c) Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > Yang, > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Yang Li wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > >> > Sorry for the spam. I somehow missed to refresh the patch before generating >> > the mbox. Find below the correct version of that one which has ALL braces >> > removed which we don't need. > >> I'm not sure how we reached the conclusion that we should remove ALL >> braces? I cannot find related discussion in the archive except for >> the "WITH" case. > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAOFm3uEpM_tBErkOvqghcy+wbw0i4mSnafPBRC3HYZVQjsSyMw@mail.gmail.com Thanks Thomas, But this email is mostly discussing the "WITH" case as I said, and it does mentioned that braces is (weakly) needed for other cases. > >> This is conflicting with the current SPDX spec at >> https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version quoted below and >> also the explenation in your own file. >> >> Quote from SPDX spec 2.1: More expressive composite license >> expressions can be constructed using "OR", "AND", and "WITH" operators >> similar to constructing mathematical expressions using arithmetic >> operators. For the Tag:value format, any license expression that >> consists of more than one license identifier and/or LicenseRef, should >> be encapsulated by parentheses: "( )". > > This is not relevant here: > > For the Tag:value format, ..... > > The kernel does not generate SPDX files in Tag:value format. The kernel > uses SPDX license identifiers to reflect the actual license of a file. I'm not sure if I understood the Tag:value term correctly. But it looks like to me that the "SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>" is a tag:value in the SPDX spec. "The tag should appear on its own line in the source file, generally as part of a comment. SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>" > >> > + A <SPDX License Expression> is either an SPDX short form license >> > + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or the combination of two >> > + SPDX short form license identifiers separated by "WITH" when a license >> > + exception applies. When multiple licenses apply, an expression consists >> > + of keywords "AND", "OR" separating sub-expressions and surrounded by >> > + "(", ")" . >> >> Conflicting with the example > > No, The keyword is 'separating sub-expressions'. It does not say license > identifiers. But the first sentense declared that an expression can just be a short form license identifier. And the examples provided in the spec also proves it: "Examples: SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 AND BSD-2-CLAUSE) SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ WITH Bison-exception-2.2)" > > So these examples are completely compliant with the documentation: > >> > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note >> > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note >> > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause > > Two license (exception) identifiers plus a operator. That's perfectly well > defined. > >> > + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT > > This is actually a case where you need parentheses and they separate the > sub-expression 'ID with EXC'. > > Adding extra parentheses around any simple 'ID operator [ID|EXC]' > expression is really overkill and does not make stuff more > readable. Likewise in programming languages. Why would anyone write: > > C et al.: a = (b || c); > Pyhton: a = (b and c) I think I agree with you that not having parentheses in these cases probably make more sense. But I think we are having a conflict with the spec now, probably we should update the SPDX spec to be aligned? Actually a lot of the current SPDX tags in kernel tree are following the spec to use the parentheses. We should do something to avoid the confusion in the future IMO. Regards, Leo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--- a/Documentation/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/index.rst @@ -13,6 +13,18 @@ documents into a coherent whole. Please documentation are welcome; join the linux-doc list at vger.kernel.org if you want to help out. +Licensing documentation +----------------------- + +The following describes the license of the Linux kernel source code +(GPLv2), how to properly mark the license of individual files in the source +tree, as well as links to the full license text. + +.. toctree:: + :maxdepth: 2 + + process/license-rules.rst + User-oriented documentation --------------------------- --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +Linux kernel licensing rules +============================ + +The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public +License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as published by the Free Software +Foundation, and provided in the COPYING file. This documentation file is +not meant to replace the COPYING file, but provides a description of how +each source file should be annotated to make the licensing it is governed +under clear and unambiguous. + +The license in the COPYING file applies to the kernel source as a whole, +though individual source files can have a different license which is +required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0:: + + GPL-1.0+ : GNU General Public License v1.0 or later + GPL-2.0+ : GNU General Public License v2.0 or later + LGPL-2.0 : GNU Library General Public License v2 only + LGPL-2.0+ : GNU Library General Public License v2 or later + LGPL-2.1 : GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 only + LGPL-2.1+ : GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later + +Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license, +e.g. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a +permissive license like BSD, MIT etc. + +The User-space API (UAPI) header files, which describe the interface of +user-space programs to the kernel are a special case. According to the +note in the kernel COPYING file, the syscall interface is a clear boundary, +which does not extend the GPL requirements to any software which uses it to +communicate with the kernel. Because the UAPI headers must be includable +into any source files which create an executable running on the Linux +kernel, the exception must be documented by a special license expression. + +The common way of expressing the license of a source file is to add the +matching boilerplate text into the top comment of the file. Due to +formatting, typos etc. these "boilerplates" are hard to validate for +tools which are used in the context of license compliance. + +An alternative to boilerplate text is the use of Software Package Data +Exchange (SPDX) license identifiers in each source file. SPDX license +identifiers are machine parsable and precise shorthands for the license +under which the content of the file is contributed. SPDX license +identifiers are managed by the SPDX Workgroup at the Linux Foundation and +have been agreed on by partners throughout the industry, tool vendors, and +legal teams. For further information see https://spdx.org/ + +The Linux kernel requires the precise SPDX identifier in all source files. +The valid identifiers used in the kernel are explained in the section +`License identifiers`_ and have been retrieved from the official SPDX +license list at https://spdx.org/licenses/ along with the license texts. + +License identifier syntax +------------------------- + +1. Placement: + + The SPDX license identifier in kernel files shall be added at the first + possible line in a file which can contain a comment. For the majority + or files this is the first line, except for scripts which require the + '#!PATH_TO_INTERPRETER' in the first line. For those scripts the SPDX + identifier goes into the second line. + +| + +2. Style: + + The SPDX license identifier is added in form of a comment. The comment + style depends on the file type:: + + C source: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> + C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */ + ASM: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> */ + scripts: # SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> + .rst: .. SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> + .dts{i}: // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression> + + If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the + appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used. This + is the reason for having the "/\* \*/" style comment in C header + files. There was build breakage observed with generated .lds files where + 'ld' failed to parse the C++ comment. This has been fixed by now, but + there are still older assembler tools which cannot handle C++ style + comments. + +| + +3. Syntax: + + A <SPDX License Expression> is either an SPDX short form license + identifier found on the SPDX License List, or the combination of two + SPDX short form license identifiers separated by "WITH" when a license + exception applies. When multiple licenses apply, an expression consists + of keywords "AND", "OR" separating sub-expressions and surrounded by + "(", ")" . + + License identifiers for licenses like [L]GPL with the 'or later' option + are constructed by using a "+" for indicating the 'or later' option.:: + + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ + // SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ + + WITH should be used when there is a modifier to a license needed. + For example, the linux kernel UAPI files use the expression:: + + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note + + Other examples using WITH exceptions found in the kernel are:: + + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH mif-exception + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH GCC-exception-2.0 + + Exceptions can only be used with particular License identifiers. The + valid License identifiers are listed in the tags of the exception text + file. For details see the point `Exceptions`_ in the chapter `License + identifiers`_. + + OR should be used if the file is dual licensed and only one license is + to be selected. For example, some dtsi files are available under dual + licenses:: + + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause + + Examples from the kernel for license expressions in dual licensed files:: + + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR Apache-2.0 + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MPL-1.1 + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause OR OpenSSL + + AND should be used if the file has multiple licenses whose terms all + apply to use the file. For example, if code is inherited from another + project and permission has been given to put it in the kernel, but the + original license terms need to remain in effect:: + + // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT + + Another other example where both sets of license terms need to be + adhered to is:: + + // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ AND LGPL-2.1+ + +License identifiers +------------------- + +The licenses currently used, as well as the licenses for code added to the +kernel, can be broken down into: + +1. _`Preferred licenses`: + + Whenever possible these licenses should be used as they are known to be + fully compatible and widely used. These licenses are available from the + directory:: + + LICENSES/preferred/ + + in the kernel source tree. + + The files in this directory contain the full license text and + `Metatags`_. The file names are identical to the SPDX license + identifier which shall be used for the license in source files. + + Examples:: + + LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 + + Contains the GPL version 2 license text and the required metatags:: + + LICENSES/preferred/MIT + + Contains the MIT license text and the required metatags + + _`Metatags`: + + The following meta tags must be available in a license file: + + - Valid-License-Identifier: + + One or more lines which declare which License Identifiers are valid + inside the project to reference this particular license text. Usually + this is a single valid identifier, but e.g. for licenses with the 'or + later' options two identifiers are valid. + + - SPDX-URL: + + The URL of the SPDX page which contains additional information related + to the license. + + - Usage-Guidance: + + Freeform text for usage advice. The text must include correct examples + for the SPDX license identifiers as they should be put into source + files according to the `License identifier syntax`_ guidelines. + + - License-Text: + + All text after this tag is treated as the original license text + + File format examples:: + + Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html + Usage-Guide: + To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX + tag/value pairs into a comment according to the placement + guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. + For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use: + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use: + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ + License-Text: + Full license text + + :: + + SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html + Usage-Guide: + To use this license in source code, put the following SPDX + tag/value pair into a comment according to the placement + guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. + SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT + License-Text: + Full license text + +| + +2. Not recommended licenses: + + These licenses should only be used for existing code or for importing + code from a different project. These licenses are available from the + directory:: + + LICENSES/other/ + + in the kernel source tree. + + The files in this directory contain the full license text and + `Metatags`_. The file names are identical to the SPDX license + identifier which shall be used for the license in source files. + + Examples:: + + LICENSES/other/ISC + + Contains the Internet Systems Consortium license text and the required + metatags:: + + LICENSES/other/ZLib + + Contains the ZLIB license text and the required metatags. + + Metatags: + + The metatag requirements for 'other' licenses are identical to the + requirements of the `Preferred licenses`_. + + File format example:: + + Valid-License-Identifier: ISC + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html + Usage-Guide: + Usage of this license in the kernel for new code is discouraged + and it should solely be used for importing code from an already + existing project. + To use this license in source code, put the following SPDX + tag/value pair into a comment according to the placement + guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. + SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC + License-Text: + Full license text + +| + +3. _`Exceptions`: + + Some licenses can be amended with exceptions which grant certain rights + which the original license does not. These exceptions are available + from the directory:: + + LICENSES/exceptions/ + + in the kernel source tree. The files in this directory contain the full + exception text and the required `Exception Metatags`_. + + Examples:: + + LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note + + Contains the Linux syscall exception as documented in the COPYING + file of the Linux kernel, which is used for UAPI header files. + e.g. /\* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note \*/:: + + LICENSES/exceptions/GCC-exception-2.0 + + Contains the GCC 'linking exception' which allows to link any binary + independent of its license against the compiled version of a file marked + with this exception. This is required for creating runnable executables + from source code which is not compatible with the GPL. + + _`Exception Metatags`: + + The following meta tags must be available in an exception file: + + - SPDX-Exception-Identifier: + + One exception identifier which can be used with SPDX license + identifiers. + + - SPDX-URL: + + The URL of the SPDX page which contains additional information related + to the exception. + + - SPDX-Licenses: + + A comma separated list of SPDX license identifiers for which the + exception can be used. + + - Usage-Guidance: + + Freeform text for usage advice. The text must be followed by correct + examples for the SPDX license identifiers as they should be put into + source files according to the `License identifier syntax`_ guidelines. + + - Exception-Text: + + All text after this tag is treated as the original exception text + + File format examples:: + + SPDX-Exception-Identifier: Linux-syscall-note + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-syscall-note.html + SPDX-Licenses: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+, GPL-1.0+, LGPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0+, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-2.1+ + Usage-Guidance: + This exception is used together with one of the above SPDX-Licenses + to mark user-space API (uapi) header files so they can be included + into non GPL compliant user-space application code. + To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the + identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag: + SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX-License> WITH Linux-syscall-note + Exception-Text: + Full exception text + + :: + + SPDX-Exception-Identifier: GCC-exception-2.0 + SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GCC-exception-2.0.html + SPDX-Licenses: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+ + Usage-Guidance: + The "GCC Runtime Library exception 2.0" is used together with one + of the above SPDX-Licenses for code imported from the GCC runtime + library. + To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the + identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag: + SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX-License> WITH GCC-exception-2.0 + Exception-Text: + Full exception text + + +All SPDX license identifiers and exceptions must have a corresponding file +in the LICENSE subdirectories. This is required to allow tool +verification (e.g. checkpatch.pl) and to have the licenses ready to read +and extract right from the source, which is recommended by various FOSS +organizations, e.g. the `FSFE REUSE initiative <https://reuse.software/>`_.