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

[Peter Maydell]

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?)
 * document (in docs/devel?) that we require SPDX
 * 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]
 * put in a checkpatch check for new files (presumably the
   Linux kernel has one we can borrow)
 * 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)

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.

thanks
-- PMM