Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:41:10 +0100
Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I'll fold this in, in the thread here. I guess this change is what Greg
> > had in mind? Or would you prefer having including SPDX and removing
> > permission statement seperately?  
> 
> I have been doing them in 2 steps, but only because the files I modified
> were in different "chunks" (i.e. add missing SPDX identifiers to a bunch
> of files in a directory, and then the second patch would remove the
> license identifiers for all files in that directory).  As that type of
> patch flow doesn't make sense here, I think what you did was just fine.

So I'll confess to being a little worried about removing the boilerplate:

	And it's important to notice that while adding a SPDX line should
	not really be controversial (as long as you get the license right,
	of course - Greg&co have the CSV files for everything, in case you
	want to check things you maintain), before removing the
	boiler-plate you really need to feel like you "own" the file.
	â Linus (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/715)

Are we sure that we're not going to get in trouble with the people who do
"own" those files if we rip out the boilerplate?  It would be good to have
some clarity on when that can be done.

Thanks,

jon