linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: add machine driver with mt6359, rt1011 and rt5682

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

Message-ID: <c34d03ff-f349-724e-0dcf-7893f3622cd9@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:46:27 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@...iatek.com>, broonie@...nel.org,
        tiwai@...e.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        aaronyu@...gle.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: add machine driver with
 mt6359, rt1011 and rt5682

>>>> +/* Module information */
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("MT8195-MT6359-RT1011-RT5682 ALSA SoC machine
>>>> driver");
>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@...iatek.com>");
>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>
>>> "GPL" is enough
>>>
>>
>> I see many projects use GPL v2 here, and all mediatek projects use
>> GPL
>> v2, too.
>> I'm not sure which one is better.
>> Do I need to modify this?

See
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html?highlight=module_license#id1

Loadable kernel modules also require a MODULE_LICENSE() tag. This tag is
neither a replacement for proper source code license information
(SPDX-License-Identifier) nor in any way relevant for expressing or
determining the exact license under which the source code of the module
is provided.

“GPL”

Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This does not express any
distinction between GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The exact license
information can only be determined via the license information in the
corresponding source files.

“GPL v2”

Same as “GPL”. It exists for historic reasons.

So "GPL v2" is not incorrect but for new contributions you might as well
use the recommended tag.