arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c | 15 +-------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 14 deletions(-)
From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place"
anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here.
But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's
rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX
license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser*
General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the
right choice here.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier
arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c | 15 +--------------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
index 45dae2d5d2f1f..69b9f8e9dfcda 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
/*
* Copyright (C) 2001 MandrakeSoft S.A.
* Copyright 2010 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates.
@@ -8,20 +9,6 @@
* http://www.linux-mandrake.com/
* http://www.mandrakesoft.com/
*
- * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
- * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
- * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
- *
- * This library 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
- * Lesser General Public License for more details.
- *
- * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
- * License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
- * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
- *
* Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@intel.com>
* Yaozu (Eddie) Dong <eddie.dong@intel.com>
* Based on Xen 3.1 code.
--
2.50.1
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:28:43 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place" > anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here. > But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's > rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX > license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser* > General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the > right choice here. > > [...] Applied to kvm-x86 misc. I followed the conversation as best as I could, holler if I picked the wrong version in the end. Thanks! [1/1] arch/x86/kvm/ioapic: Remove license boilerplate with bad FSF address https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/49be82d4ad2e -- https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/next
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > > The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place" > anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here. > But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's > rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX > license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser* > General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the > right choice here. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier If you look at the LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 file, it says to use: SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ as the kernel's SPDX level is older than you might think. Also, doesn't the scripts/spdxcheck.pl tool object to the "or-later" when you run it on the tree with this change in it? thansk, greg k-h
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > > > > The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place" > > anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here. > > But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's > > rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX > > license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser* > > General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the > > right choice here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > > --- > > v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier > > If you look at the LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 file, it says to use: > SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ > > as the kernel's SPDX level is older than you might think. > > Also, doesn't the scripts/spdxcheck.pl tool object to the "or-later" > when you run it on the tree with this change in it? Ugh, sorry, no, it lists both, the tool should have been fine. I was reading the text of the file, not the headers at the top of it. My fault. Anyway, I'll let this go through the subsystem tree for it, after the merge window is closed, as that's the best way for it to flow forward. thanks, greg k-h
On 28/07/2025 17.50, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>> >>> The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place" >>> anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here. >>> But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's >>> rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX >>> license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser* >>> General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the >>> right choice here. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier >> >> If you look at the LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 file, it says to use: >> SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ >> >> as the kernel's SPDX level is older than you might think. >> >> Also, doesn't the scripts/spdxcheck.pl tool object to the "or-later" >> when you run it on the tree with this change in it? > > Ugh, sorry, no, it lists both, the tool should have been fine. I was > reading the text of the file, not the headers at the top of it. My > fault. By the way, is there a reason why LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 suggests only the old variant: For 'GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or any later version' use: SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ ... while LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 suggests both: For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ or SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later That looks somewhat inconsistent to me... Should the LGPL files be updated? Thomas
On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 01:26:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 28/07/2025 17.50, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place" > > > > anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here. > > > > But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's > > > > rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX > > > > license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser* > > > > General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the > > > > right choice here. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier > > > > > > If you look at the LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 file, it says to use: > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ > > > > > > as the kernel's SPDX level is older than you might think. > > > > > > Also, doesn't the scripts/spdxcheck.pl tool object to the "or-later" > > > when you run it on the tree with this change in it? > > > > Ugh, sorry, no, it lists both, the tool should have been fine. I was > > reading the text of the file, not the headers at the top of it. My > > fault. > > By the way, is there a reason why LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 suggests only > the old variant: > > For 'GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or any later > version' use: > SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ > > ... while LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 suggests both: > > For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use: > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > or > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > > That looks somewhat inconsistent to me... Should the LGPL files be updated? If you want to, sure. Odds are we don't have many LGPL files in the tree for it to ever be noticed before. thanks, greg k-h
On 28/07/2025 17.36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> >> The Free Software Foundation does not reside in "59 Temple Place" >> anymore, so we should not mention that address in the source code here. >> But instead of updating the address to their current location, let's >> rather drop the license boilerplate text here and use a proper SPDX >> license identifier instead. The text talks about the "GNU *Lesser* >> General Public License" and "any later version", so LGPL-2.1+ is the >> right choice here. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> --- >> v2: Don't use the deprecated LGPL-2.1+ identifier > > If you look at the LICENSES/preferred/LGPL-2.1 file, it says to use: > SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ > > as the kernel's SPDX level is older than you might think. Ok, got it, then please ignore this v2 and use v1 instead. > Also, doesn't the scripts/spdxcheck.pl tool object to the "or-later" > when you run it on the tree with this change in it? I used the scripts/checkpatch.pl which is also supposed to check SPDX tags, and it did not complain... Thomas
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.