[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOFm3uHagzL5r5MYfu1ep5nf9Y6RAj866+uUO74c1mJRYPfeQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:17:39 +0100
From: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add SPDX tag for s390_pci_hpc.c
Bjorn,
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> I previously posted patches [1] to add SPDX tags to all drivers/pci files
> except drivers/pci/hotplug/s390_pci_hpc.c. I omitted that one because it
> contained only a "License: GPL" comment, which I thought was ambiguous.
>
> However, I think it is actually unambiguous because the file was added with
> a 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")', and include/linux/module.h shows that means "GPL
> v2 or later".
>
> So this patch adds the GPL-2.0+ tag to the file. I plan to include this
> for v4.16 unless somebody objects.
As I as said in a previous email, context matters a lot in these case
and you made the right choice.
When there is a MODULE_LICENSE and a super terse "GPL" license notice,
the two taken together can provide the proper context e.g. here
GPL-2.0+ rather than a less common GPL-1.0+
Thank you for your efforts there!
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
Powered by blists - more mailing lists