From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:11:29 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] power: reset: qnap-poweroff: Fix License String In-Reply-To: <20130120204728.GA16339@lizard.gateway.2wire.net> References: <20130106215509.GD26928@lizard.sbx05280.losalca.wayport.net> <1357668926-20598-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch> <20130120201336.GO8668@pengutronix.de> <20130120204728.GA16339@lizard.gateway.2wire.net> Message-ID: <20130121081129.GP8668@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello Anton, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:47:29PM -0800, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 09:13:36PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:15:26PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > GPLv2+ is not a valid license string. Replace it with one that is. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn > > > --- > > > drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c b/drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c > > > index ca0b476..8af772b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c > > > +++ b/drivers/power/reset/qnap-poweroff.c > > > @@ -121,4 +121,4 @@ module_platform_driver(qnap_power_off_driver); > > > > > > MODULE_AUTHOR("Andrew Lunn "); > > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("QNAP Power off driver"); > > > -MODULE_LICENSE("GPLv2+"); > > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > > This change is wrong. > > > > According to include/linux/module.h "GPL v2" means exactly that: version > > 2. As the file specifies v2 or later in the header you have to use "GPL" > > which means v2 or later. > > Does it even make sense to have the two separate things ("GPL v2" and > "GPL")? Yeah. If you had another OS project that uses GPL-4 you can just copy over a GPL-2+ driver to it, not an GPL-2 driver. So assuming the kernel will stay at GPL-2 forever it doesn't make any difference for the kernel. But other projects might benefit. (And if in the future someone might want to change the kernel to GPL-4, she only needs to contact the GPL-2 authors and can legally change GPL-2+ to GPL-4+.) > Suppose there is a global change that modifies a bunch of drivers, some of > them are GPLv2+. Now, the author of the global change is submitting it > under "GPL v2 only" license, which, by definition, turns any GPLv2+ code > into "GPL v2 only", right? See http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/dual_license_bsd_gpl.html for Linus' POV. It's an old mail, but I think it still applies. > So, changing from GPLv2+ to "GPL v2 only" is OK, but not the other way > around. OK as in (probably) legal. OK as in fair is questionable. > IANAL, tho. ditto. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |