On 02/18/2018 01:02 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:07:57 +0530 > Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 17:01 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: >>> Hi Shreeya, >>> >> Hi Himanshu, >> >>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 09:34:56PM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote: >>>> >>>> Use SPDX identifier format instead of GPLv2. Also rearrange the >>>> headers in alphabetical order. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23...@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c | 7 +++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c >>>> b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c >>>> index 7fcef9a..e3d9f80 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c >>>> @@ -1,19 +1,18 @@ >>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ >>>> /* >>>> * ADIS16209 Dual-Axis Digital Inclinometer and Accelerometer >>>> * >>>> * Copyright 2010 Analog Devices Inc. >>>> - * >>>> - * Licensed under the GPL-2 or later. >>> I see that you too are doing similar cleanup which I did a while ago >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/12/255 >> >> Yes, Jonathan suggested me to work on adis16209. >> Your patches were quite useful for me :) >> >>> where I got some update suggestions for the patch series. It would be >>> great if you could update this patch series consistent with the >>> reviewers. >>> >>> For eg: in this patch you changed >>> >>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ >>> >>> and therefore >>> >>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); >>> >>> should also be changed to >>> >>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); >>> >>> as explained by Philippe Ombredanne to me in my patch series. >> > I'm not sure that was exactly what Philippe was suggesting. > He was making the point that the licensing was inconsistent without > saying which option should be chosen. > > We will need to seek clarification from Analog Devices > on what their opinion on this is. > > Lars / Michael, any clarification on the right way to resolve this > inconsistency?
I can't speak for the intended license for code I wasn't involved in. But I'd in general if there are conflicting licensing information and you want to be on the safe side choose the more restrictive license. E.g. GPL2+ is compatible with GPL2, but GPL2 is not compatible with GPL2+. So to be compatible with both choose GPL2. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
