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: <03494ad08689e43358d554bbc48936118a63fd45.camel@mediatek.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:33:16 +0800
From:   Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@...iatek.com>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.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

On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 09:46 -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > > > +/* 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html?highlight=module_license*id1__;Iw!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!0xwqsodizM7jFI4lwpT7_h2bk6xHtdNb32YDo2lneZ9u-cs5hAqqdqTci89qK8FwLg$
>  
> 
> 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.


Got it.
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
I will correct it in V2.

Trevor