Re: meson.build files are missing copyright/license headers

[Thomas Huth]

On 25/08/2020 11.53, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 06:57, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 24/08/2020 20.46, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> We don't mandate SPDX[*],
>>> but it will do the job if you want to use it.
>>>
>>> [*] Mostly because nobody's cared enough to say "we should
>>> standardize on this and convert existing files and add the
>>> check to checkpatch that new files have an SPDX line".
>>
>> We should standardize on this and convert existing files and add the
>> check to checkpatch that new files have an SPDX line! :-)
>>
>> Ok, now sombody said it loud. Would there be any objections to enforce
>> this via checkpatch on new files?
> 
> I wouldn't object, indeed I think checkpatch-enforcement is an
> important part of the process. I think that if we're going
> to move to SPDX we should:
>  * look at the SPDX spec and identify what we need to do beyond
>    just adding SPDX lines (eg do we need a LICENSES/ subdir
>    like the kernel has with a file per license?)

Ack

>  * document (in docs/devel?) that we require SPDX

Ack

>  * decide what our plan is for 3rd-party code (libvixl, etc)
>    [where any SPDX line we add will be lost again next time
>    we resync our copy of the code]

For things like libvixl, I wonder why this is not a git submodule instead?

For other things that we sync manually, I guess it should be ok to add
the SPDX tags there since the files are likely out of sync anyway.

>  * put in a checkpatch check for new files (presumably the
>    Linux kernel has one we can borrow)

Ack

>  * update existing files (I think the kernel folks probably
>    have scripted stuff for the easy parts of this; multi-license
>    files like fpu/softfloat.c likely need by-hand conversion)

Yes. I think we have to be very careful here with old files - adding the
tags is likely ok, but e.g. removing the boilerplate text in the various
headers at the same time could be problematic (e.g. the MIT license says
"... this permission notice shall be included in all copies or
substantial portions of the Software")...

> Mostly I think if we're going to do this we should find somebody
> who wants to put in the work to push it forwards so we don't
> have a half-and-half interminably extended transition between
> old-style license notices and SPDX.

Agreed. I'd certainly be interested in helping here, but I currently
don't have time to fully drive this. So if someone has spare time for
this that would be very welcome - otherwise I might have a closer look
at the topics in a couple of weeks or months.

 Thomas