Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] Input: cros_ec_keyb - Switch to SPDX identifier.

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:14:24PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
> 
> On 05/06/18 20:04, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > Hi Enric,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > <enric.balletbo@collabora.com> wrote:
> >> Adopt the SPDX license identifier headers to ease license compliance
> >> management.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changes in v2:
> >> - [6/9] Do not remove last paragraph.
> >>
> >>  drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 34 ++++++++++-----------------
> >>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> >> index 79eb29550c34..91b2839c12df 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> >> @@ -1,25 +1,15 @@
> >> -/*
> >> - * ChromeOS EC keyboard driver
> >> - *
> >> - * Copyright (C) 2012 Google, Inc
> >> - *
> >> - * This software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> >> - * License version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and
> > 
> > Original text says GPL-2.0...
> > 
> >> - * may be copied, distributed, and modified under those terms.
> >> - *
> >> - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> >> - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >> - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> >> - * GNU General Public License for more details.
> >> - *
> >> - * This driver uses the Chrome OS EC byte-level message-based protocol for
> >> - * communicating the keyboard state (which keys are pressed) from a keyboard EC
> >> - * to the AP over some bus (such as i2c, lpc, spi).  The EC does debouncing,
> >> - * but everything else (including deghosting) is done here.  The main
> >> - * motivation for this is to keep the EC firmware as simple as possible, since
> >> - * it cannot be easily upgraded and EC flash/IRAM space is relatively
> >> - * expensive.
> >> - */
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > 
> > but here you add a GPL-2.0+ type.
> > 
> 
> Right, but the module license is set to GPL which means GNU Public License v2 or
> later, see [1]. So, there is a mismatch. In such cases I assumed GPL-2.0+ as the
> default. These mismatches are common so I think that should be fine for the
> authors, if someone is disagree just let me know and I will change.

NO!

The license text is what you need to follow as almost everyone gets the
MODULE_LICENSE() stuff wrong.  You can not follow the MODULE_LICENSE
marking for determining GPLv2 vs. GPLv2+ at this point in time.  After
we get the SPDX stuff all cleaned up then we can go and fix up the
MODULE_LICENSE mismatch.

So again, always defer to the license text in the file, NOT the
MODULE_LICENSE() marking.

thanks,

greg k-h