Re: checkpatch.pl error might be false positive

Josh Triplett
2013-12-20T07:56:48Z

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:15:48PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 13:01 -0800, Ravi Patel wrote:
> > My name is Ravi Patel and I am working for AppliedMicro.
> > I am planning to submit APM X-Gene SoC QMTM drivers to open source after
> > running checkpatch.pl
> > I am seeing following error saying remove FSF address from my patch, which
> > I don't have in my source/header files.
> >
> > ERROR: Do not include the paragraph about writing to the Free Software
> > Foundation's mailing address from the sample GPL notice. The FSF has
> > changed addresses in the past, and may do so again. Linux already includes
> > a copy of the GPL.
> > #1580: FILE: include/misc/xgene/xgene_qmtm.h:19:
> > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License$
> >
> > Here is my License banner in xgene_qmtm.h
> > There are no tabs in my banner
> >
> > /*
> > * AppliedMicro X-Gene SOC Queue Manager/Traffic Manager driver
> > *
> > * Copyright (c) 2013 Applied Micro Circuits Corporation.
> > * Author: Ravi Patel <rapatel@apm.com>
> > * Keyur Chudgar <kchudgar@apm.com>
> > * Fushen Chen <fchen@apm.com>
> > *
> > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> > * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
> > * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
> > * option) any later version.
> > *
> > * 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.
> > *
> > * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> > * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> > *
> > */
> >
> > Can you please check if the error is false positive.
>
> Josh?
>
> Is the intent that the "copy of the GNU General Public License"
> statement should also be removed?

While it does seem preferable to drop that paragraph, it isn't nearly as
important as dropping the mailing address. The match on "You should
have received a copy" should probably be reduced to CHK level or
dropped.

> Jesse had a question recently about the appropriateness of the
> removal given the license text.
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg262152.html

Changing the license text is not OK (though the FSF has said it's OK to
make new licenses based on the legal text minus the preamble and sample
instructions, but that doesn't apply here).

But that's not the same as the license *notice*, to which the "but
changing it is not allowed" does not apply.

- Josh Triplett