GPL-1.0-licensed code for files drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986* included with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock support")

GPL-1.0-licensed code for files drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986* included with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock support")

[Lukas Bulwahn]

Dear Sam,


Thanks for contributing the mt7986 clock support to the kernel
repository with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock
support").

You have marked the files below with the GPL-1.0 License, which
./scripts/spdxcheck.py identifies and warns about:

drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-apmixed.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL-1.0
drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-infracfg.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL-1.0
drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-topckgen.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL-1.0

The kernel's licensing rules are described here:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html#kernel-licensing

The GPL-1.0 is a deprecated license in the kernel repository.

Driver code that is licensed with GPL-1.0 might not be compatible with
GPL-2.0. I am not a lawyer, and we probably do not want to require all
users of your driver code to needlessly involve a lawyer to get such a
statement on license compatibility.

Do you really intend to license this code under GPL-1.0 and are you
aware of all the consequences for other developers and users? Or is
this a mistake and you intend to license it under the kernel's
standard GPL-2.0 license?


Best regards,

Lukas

Re: GPL-1.0-licensed code for files drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986* included with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock support")

[Sam Shih]

Hi Luka/Stephen,

This is my mistake, I seem to use an old license header on it.
Just like "clk-mt7986-eth.c" in the same patch series,


https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211217121148.6753-4-sam.shih@mediatek.com/

I intend to license "clk-mt7986-apmixed.c", "clk-mt7986-infracfg.c",
and "clk-mt7986-topckgen" under the kernel's standard GPL-2.0.

Should I need to resend this patch?
Or I can just send a follow-up patch to fix it?

Regards,
Sam


On Mon, 2022-01-10 at 10:56 +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> Dear Sam,
> 
> 
> Thanks for contributing the mt7986 clock support to the kernel
> repository with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock
> support").
> 
> You have marked the files below with the GPL-1.0 License, which
> ./scripts/spdxcheck.py identifies and warns about:
> 
> drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-apmixed.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID:
> GPL-1.0
> drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-infracfg.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID:
> GPL-1.0
> drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-topckgen.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID:
> GPL-1.0
> 
> The kernel's licensing rules are described here:
> 
> 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html*kernel-licensing__;Iw!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!3vjYIYa2VqgzRgsUxjx-mwtOtidbamcTDphKaMUo-7ql0YlaB4Qi_Xc-1vDpFfju$
>  
> 
> The GPL-1.0 is a deprecated license in the kernel repository.
> 
> Driver code that is licensed with GPL-1.0 might not be compatible
> with
> GPL-2.0. I am not a lawyer, and we probably do not want to require
> all
> users of your driver code to needlessly involve a lawyer to get such
> a
> statement on license compatibility.
> 
> Do you really intend to license this code under GPL-1.0 and are you
> aware of all the consequences for other developers and users? Or is
> this a mistake and you intend to license it under the kernel's
> standard GPL-2.0 license?
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Lukas

Re: GPL-1.0-licensed code for files drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986* included with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock support")

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Sam Shih (2022-01-10 04:12:57)
> Hi Luka/Stephen,
> 
> This is my mistake, I seem to use an old license header on it.
> Just like "clk-mt7986-eth.c" in the same patch series,
> 
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211217121148.6753-4-sam.shih@mediatek.com/
> 
> I intend to license "clk-mt7986-apmixed.c", "clk-mt7986-infracfg.c",
> and "clk-mt7986-topckgen" under the kernel's standard GPL-2.0.
> 
> Should I need to resend this patch?
> Or I can just send a follow-up patch to fix it?
> 

Please send a followup to fix it.