Re: [PATCH 2/2] LICENSES: Remove the use of deprecated LGPL SPDX tags

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 05.05.2023 15:22, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/05/2023 2:13 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.05.2023 15:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> The SPDX forms without an explicit -only or -or-later suffix are deprecated
>>> and should not be used.
>> I guess this wants a reference to where this is specified. In particular ...
>>
>>> --- a/LICENSES/LGPL-2.1
>>> +++ b/LICENSES/LGPL-2.1
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>>> -Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1
>>> -Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+
>>> +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-only
>>> +Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
>>>  
>>>  SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.1.html
>> ... I can't spot anything like this under e.g. this URL.
> 
> Hmm yeah, it is irritating.  The statement is at
> https://spdx.org/licenses/ but only by virtue of two tables, the second
> of which is the list of deprecated identifiers.
> 
> I'll put a paragraph about this in the commit message.
> 
>> Also is there a reason you add Deprecated-Identifier: only to GPL-2.0?
>> Enumerating them would seem reasonable to me, not just for completeness,
>> but also in case we end up importing a file with a deprecated tag.
> 
> We have problematic uses of GPL in tree, where we don't for LGPL.
> 
> I'm considering a gitlab pass which will reject patches with use an
> identifier not in the permitted list, and reject in introduction of new
> uses of the deprecated ones.    For this, the deprecated-but-tolerated
> tags need calling out in some machine-readable way, but I don't think
> it's helpful to express the tolerating of a tag we don't have any
> violations of.

Hmm, okay. With the expanded commit message
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Jan