On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 02:16:03PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:

quoted

On 24 Mar 2023, Geert Uytterhoeven uttered the following:

quoted

I (still) agree with that, and I saw similar comments from others as well.
Unfortunately these comments are spread across tens of threads :-(

Ugh. Should I do this sort of thing in one big commit next time? That
would fix that problem, but at the cost of others. Lumping seems to me
to be troublesome because it makes it harder to accept/reject different
bits, but would it be *as* troublesome as this much splitting?

The problem is, some of us disagree that this should be done at all, so
reverting all of the individual parts is going to be hard now.

Please put back the license bits that you removed, as it is not a good
idea to remove that if the file does not have a SPDX entry at the very
least.

Nick, I've just dropped your series. Please only re-submit only for
files where the license is clear. The effort of clarifying licenses
on files where one doesn't have an SPDX tag is welcomed but can take
time and we'll need this anyway in the future to help later strive to
see if we can automatically generate the MODULE_LICENSE() from the
SPDX tags.

  Luis