From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: add support for Semtech SX8654 I2C touchscreen controller Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:26:45 -0800 Message-ID: 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> <1425765281.2300.17.camel@x220> <64C774DE-93CD-41FB-AF78-301503025592@gmail.com> <1425766340.2300.29.camel@x220> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:36137 "EHLO mail-pd0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752733AbbCGW07 (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2015 17:26:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1425766340.2300.29.camel@x220> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Bolle 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 March 7, 2015 2:12:20 PM PST, Paul Bolle wrote: >On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:02 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle >wrote: >> >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? >> >> Because nobody wants to go through hundreds of drivers and change >them? > >Not fun, but surely doable. > >> >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, >> >> They are treated interchangeably as far as I can see. Where do you >see >> "GPL" is being treated differently than "GPL v2". > >I'm not going to explain here why "GPL v2" or "GPL v2 or later" differ. I was talking about them being treated differently from technological standpoint (i.e. the code), not from legal one. > >"GPL" is documented to mean "GPL v2 or later". "GPL v2" is documented >to >mean just that (see include/linux/module.h). Again, you're free to >submit a patch to somehow simplify that. But unless a patch like that >is >applied, we should make sure MODULE_LICENSE() matches the actual >license >of the module involved. If you want to fix up input drivers I'll take such patch, but I am sure more such cases will sneak in unless you also make sure that there are tools (such as checkpatch.pl) that can alert developers to the inconsistency. Thanks. -- Dmitry