From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764671AbdKRKaC (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Nov 2017 05:30:02 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:51212 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764654AbdKRK3w (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Nov 2017 05:29:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:29:55 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Philippe Ombredanne Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Hans Verkuil , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Johan Hovold , Davidlohr Bueso , Sakari Ailus , Linux Media Mailing List , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: usbvision: remove unneeded DRIVER_LICENSE #define Message-ID: <20171118102955.GH8368@kroah.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 06:26:30PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab > wrote: > > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:01:41 +0100 > > Philippe Ombredanne escreveu: > > > >> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab > >> wrote: > >> > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:18:26 +0100 > >> > Greg Kroah-Hartman escreveu: > >> > > >> > Its license is actually GPL 2.0+ > >> > > >> > So, I would actually change it to: > >> > > >> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > >> > >> Mauro: > >> > >> actually even if it sounds weird the module.h doc [1] is clear on this topic: > >> > >> * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later] > >> * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2] > >> > >> So it should be "GPL" IMHO. > >> > >> > >> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/module.h?id=refs/tags/v4.10#n175 > >> > > > > Oh! Yeah, you're right. I would add that on the Kernel documentation > > somewhere, perhaps with the new document that Thomas is writing > > about SPFX. > > The Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst doc mentions > > MODULE_LICENSE, but doesn't define the expected values for it. > > > Good point! > > Thomas: > Is this something that should be taken care of? > If yes, I may be able take a crack at it sometimes next week. > > unless... > > Mauro: > if you have a docwriter soul and want to make a good deed for the > holidays, may you feel like starting a doc patch? :P > > e.g. something along the lines: > > "Here are the valid values for MODULE_LICENSE as found in module.h ... > And here are the rules to set a MODULE_LICENSE and how this relates to > the top level SPDX-License-Identifier..." > > BTW, I wished we could align the MODULE_LICENSE values with the SPDX > ids for clarity and as this would inject normalized SPDX license tags > in the Elf binaries. > > But that 's likely impossible as it would break a truck load of > out-of-tree module macros and out-of-tree module loading command line > tools everywhere (such as busybox and many other) so the (computing) > world would crawl to a halt. *sigh* That's a much longer-term project, let's get the obvious things done first before worrying about this type of thing :) thanks, greg k-h