From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751105AbbCHEvY (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2015 23:51:24 -0500 Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com ([209.85.213.176]:37699 "EHLO mail-ig0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750722AbbCHEvV (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2015 23:51:21 -0500 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 20:51:15 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov 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 , Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: add support for Semtech SX8654 I2C touchscreen controller Message-ID: <20150308045115.GA4054@dtor-ws> 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> <1425767935.2300.48.camel@x220> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1425767935.2300.48.camel@x220> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 11:38:55PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:26 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On March 7, 2015 2:12:20 PM PST, Paul Bolle wrote: > > I was talking about them being treated differently from technological > > standpoint (i.e. the code), not from legal one. > > From a technological standpoint it would be easy to declare "GPL" (or > any other string) to mean "GPL v2 compatible", which is, I think, all > that matters. But license_is_gpl_compatible() doesn't do that. And I > fear that's for a reason. Is my fear unfounded? Well we might ask Rusty on the off chance that he remembers but my guess would be that he added "GPL v2" in addition to "GPL" and other license stings because at the time there was one driver, drivers/net/tulip/xircom_tulip_cb.c, that used MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"). > > > 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. > > checkpatch.pl crossed my mind too. But in just over a week of checking > the license comments of (a subset of) the submitted patches I've come to > think that just won't work. Thanks. -- Dmitry