Re: [PATCH 1/3] Staging: iio: adis16209: Use SPDX identifier

[Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>]

On 02/18/2018 01:02 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:07:57 +0530
> Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 17:01 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
>>> Hi Shreeya,
>>>   
>> Hi Himanshu,
>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 09:34:56PM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote:  
>>>>
>>>> Use SPDX identifier format instead of GPLv2. Also rearrange the
>>>> headers in alphabetical order.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c | 7 +++----
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c
>>>> b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c
>>>> index 7fcef9a..e3d9f80 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c
>>>> @@ -1,19 +1,18 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>>>  /*
>>>>   * ADIS16209 Dual-Axis Digital Inclinometer and Accelerometer
>>>>   *
>>>>   * Copyright 2010 Analog Devices Inc.
>>>> - *
>>>> - * Licensed under the GPL-2 or later.  
>>> I see that you too are doing similar cleanup which I did a while ago
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/12/255  
>>
>> Yes, Jonathan suggested me to work on adis16209.
>> Your patches were quite useful for me :)
>>
>>> where I got some update suggestions for the patch series. It would be
>>> great if you could update this patch series consistent with the
>>> reviewers.
>>>
>>> For eg: in this patch you changed 
>>>
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>>
>>> and therefore
>>>
>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>
>>> should also be changed to 
>>>
>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); 
>>>
>>> as explained by	Philippe Ombredanne to me in my patch series.  
>>
> I'm not sure that was exactly what Philippe was suggesting.
> He was making the point that the licensing was inconsistent without
> saying which option should be chosen.
> 
> We will need to seek clarification from Analog Devices
> on what their opinion on this is.
> 
> Lars / Michael, any clarification on the right way to resolve this
> inconsistency?

I can't speak for the intended license for code I wasn't involved in.

But I'd in general if there are conflicting licensing information and you
want to be on the safe side choose the more restrictive license. E.g. GPL2+
is compatible with GPL2, but GPL2 is not compatible with GPL2+. So to be
compatible with both choose GPL2.