| Message ID | 20180917171700.32390-2-stephen@that.guru |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
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@that.guru> > Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@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 Stephen
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Finucane" <stephen@that.guru> > To: patchwork@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@that.guru> > > Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@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. Veronika > Stephen > > _______________________________________________ > Patchwork mailing list > Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork >
On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 13:34 -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stephen Finucane" <stephen@that.guru> > > To: patchwork@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@that.guru> > > > Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@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. Stephen > Veronika > > > Stephen > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Patchwork mailing list > > Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org > > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork > >
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Finucane" <stephen@that.guru> > To: "Veronika Kabatova" <vkabatov@redhat.com> > Cc: patchwork@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@that.guru> > > > To: patchwork@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@that.guru> > > > > Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@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@lists.ozlabs.org > > > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork > > > > > >
On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 10:54 -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stephen Finucane" <stephen@that.guru> > > To: "Veronika Kabatova" <vkabatov@redhat.com> > > Cc: patchwork@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@that.guru> > > > > To: patchwork@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@that.guru> > > > > > Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@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). Oh, I had no idea this was even a thing. Good spot. > 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. Correct. I'll do this now and resubmit. > Please let me know if my understanding about the topic is correct or if I > missed any discussions about the license change. Nope, your understanding is correct. The plan is not to relicense things but rather get rid of the boilerplate from each file (versus fixing the incorrect address in all of them). Stephen > 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@lists.ozlabs.org > > > > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork > > > > > > > > > >
diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.rst b/CONTRIBUTING.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..131e2dcb --- /dev/null +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.rst @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +Contributing +============ + +For guidelines on contributing, refer to the `contributors documentation`__. + +__ https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development/contributing/ diff --git a/docs/development/contributing.rst b/docs/development/contributing.rst index 7e2a72cf..bada3938 100644 --- a/docs/development/contributing.rst +++ b/docs/development/contributing.rst @@ -4,13 +4,25 @@ Contributing Coding Standards ---------------- -**Follow PEP8**. All code is currently PEP8 compliant and it should stay this -way. +**Follow PEP8**. All code is currently `PEP 8`_ compliant and it should stay +this way. + +All code must be GPLv2 licensed and must have a `SPDX License Identifier`_ +stating this. A copyright line should be included on new files and may be added +for significant changes to existing files. + +.. code-block:: python + + # Patchwork - automated patch tracking system + # Copyright (C) 2000 Jane Doe <jane.doe@example.com> + # Copyright (C) 2001 Joe Bloggs <joebloggs@example.com> + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 Changes that fix semantic issues will be generally be happily received, but please keep such changes separate from functional changes. -`pep8` targets are provided via tox. Refer to the :ref:`testing` section +``pep8`` targets are provided via tox. Refer to the :ref:`testing` section below for more information on usage of this tool. .. _testing: @@ -148,6 +160,8 @@ announcements. Further information about the Patchwork mailing list is available can be found on `lists.ozlabs.org`_. +.. _PEP 8: https://pep8.org/ +.. _SPDX License Identifier: https://spdx.org/using-spdx-license-identifier .. _tox: https://tox.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ .. _reno: https://docs.openstack.org/developer/reno/ .. _QEMU guidelines: http://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch
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@that.guru> Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net> --- CONTRIBUTING.rst | 6 ++++++ docs/development/contributing.rst | 20 +++++++++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.rst