[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f3836a37d36dece52213d4b33e2b666cb187fc2.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 20:12:57 +0800
From: Sam Shih <sam.shih@...iatek.com>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPL-1.0-licensed code for files
drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986* included with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk:
mediatek: add mt7986 clock support")
Hi Luka/Stephen,
This is my mistake, I seem to use an old license header on it.
Just like "clk-mt7986-eth.c" in the same patch series,
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211217121148.6753-4-sam.shih@mediatek.com/
I intend to license "clk-mt7986-apmixed.c", "clk-mt7986-infracfg.c",
and "clk-mt7986-topckgen" under the kernel's standard GPL-2.0.
Should I need to resend this patch?
Or I can just send a follow-up patch to fix it?
Regards,
Sam
On Mon, 2022-01-10 at 10:56 +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> Dear Sam,
>
>
> Thanks for contributing the mt7986 clock support to the kernel
> repository with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock
> support").
>
> You have marked the files below with the GPL-1.0 License, which
> ./scripts/spdxcheck.py identifies and warns about:
>
> drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-apmixed.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID:
> GPL-1.0
> drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-infracfg.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID:
> GPL-1.0
> drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-topckgen.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID:
> GPL-1.0
>
> The kernel's licensing rules are described here:
>
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html*kernel-licensing__;Iw!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!3vjYIYa2VqgzRgsUxjx-mwtOtidbamcTDphKaMUo-7ql0YlaB4Qi_Xc-1vDpFfju$
>
>
> The GPL-1.0 is a deprecated license in the kernel repository.
>
> Driver code that is licensed with GPL-1.0 might not be compatible
> with
> GPL-2.0. I am not a lawyer, and we probably do not want to require
> all
> users of your driver code to needlessly involve a lawyer to get such
> a
> statement on license compatibility.
>
> Do you really intend to license this code under GPL-1.0 and are you
> aware of all the consequences for other developers and users? Or is
> this a mistake and you intend to license it under the kernel's
> standard GPL-2.0 license?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lukas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists