Re: [Device-mainlining] [PATCH v2 2/3] gadget: Introduce the usb charger framework

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 05:50:31PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > On 08/16/2015 08:03 PM, Baolin Wang via device-mainlining wrote:
> > > On 14 August 2015 at 23:27, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 05:47:45PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > >>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > >>> + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > >>> + * (at your option) any later version.
> > >>
> > >> I have to ask, do you really mean "any later version"?
> > >>
> > > 
> > > I think I did not get your point, could you explain it detailedly?
> > 
> > The full kernel is licensed under v2 of the GPL only, not "any later version".
> > See the second paragraph at the top of the COPYING file in the root directory
> > of the kernel source tree. There are differences on individual files, but
> > having this file allow "any later version" makes it different from much of
> > rest of the kernel.
> > 
> > Unless you have a specific reason to allow greater-than-V2 GPL licensing on this
> > file, you should change the licensing clause.  The following wording appears
> > to be pretty popular:
> > 
> > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> 
> Please, keep it V2 or later, if you can. It makes sharing code with U-Boot (for
> example) easier.
> 
> There's long tradition of "V2 or later" code in the kernel.

And there's even longer "v2 only" tradition as well.  It's up to the
person / company submitting the code to pick the license for it, let
them make the decision please.

thanks,

greg k-h