From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Bolle Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: add support for Semtech SX8654 I2C touchscreen controller Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:54:41 +0100 Message-ID: <1425765281.2300.17.camel@x220> References: <1425666099-8365-1-git-send-email-sebastien.szymanski@armadeus.com> <20150306182155.GB4540@dtor-ws> <20150307005717.GD26151@dtor-ws> <1425731545.2281.3.camel@tiscali.nl> <20150307212543.GA38770@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cpsmtpb-ews01.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.4]:57211 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews01.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752623AbbCGVyo (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2015 16:54:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20150307212543.GA38770@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= Szymanski , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Kumar Gala On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 13:25 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > I am not sure if anyone cares about exact version of GPL in module > information (2 only vs 2+) since it only used to figure out if the > module taints kernel or not. In fact there are more modules that are v2 > only that claim GPL than the ones claiming GPL v2. > > dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")'`; do grep -H '2 as published' $file; done | wc -l > 259 > dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")'`; do grep -H '2 as published' $file; do ne | wc -l > 150 > > Also: > > dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")'`; do grep -H '2 or ' $file; done | wc -l > 68 > dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")'`; do grep -H '2 or ' $file; done | wc -l > 237 By that logic we might as well simplify the logic of license_is_gpl_compatible() and MODULE_LICENSE() quite a bit. Why check for six variants instead of just one and be done with it? Anyhow, "GPL" and "GPL v2" are both allowed but not identical. So, unless a patch is applied to treat them interchangeably, somehow, in the module license checking code, we ought to make each instance of MODULE_LICENSE() match the actual license of the module it's used for. Yes, that's annoying. You're free to submit a patch to end all the busywork this brings along. But I fear there's a reason for all that busywork. Please prove me wrong. It would make everyone's life a bit easier. Paul Bolle