linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: power: supply: goldfish

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903200905380.1816@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:14:21 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Roman Kiryanov <rkir@...gle.com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Fix bogus SPDX
 identifier

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> Hi, I am sorry for this warning. I remember I checked all changes I
> sent, maybe missed this one.
> 
> At the bottom the file says
> 
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> 
> and
> 
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> 
> makes it inconsistent.

No. It does not.

 1) The module license is not a precise license indicator.

 2) SPDX License identifiers are well defined and standardized. 'GPL' is
    NOT a valid SPDX identifier.

The usage of SPDX identifiers and the relevance of the MODULE_LICENSE()
string are well documented in:

    Documentation/process/license-rules.rst

or for your conveniance at:

    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html

Thanks,

	tglx