[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YciH1Z69O85elZ/c@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2021 16:18:45 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
andrey.konovalov@...ux.dev, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: raw-gadget: upgrade license identifier
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 03:50:43PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 3:02 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 14:19 +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > I wonder if checkpatch could alert about considering GPL-2.0+ when
> > > adding new files.
> >
> > No. Licensing is up to the author/submitter.
>
> You're right. However, knowingly choosing a license requires that the
> author doesn't forget to look into the difference and understand it.
>
> When I contributed this code, I didn't realize that GPL-2.0 and
> GPL-2.0+ are different things. I was focused on the excitement of
> contributing a new USB gadget driver.
>
> What would have allowed my to not overlook this, is that if throughout
> the _process_ of contributing a new module, something would _ask_ me:
> "Is this really the license you want to use?".
I normally try to do that when I see GPL-2.0+, sorry I didn't do that
this time.
But really, your open-source training at your employer should have
covered all of that. If not, then something went wrong there :(
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists