On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:45:44PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On 05/06/18 20:29, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:16:40PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > >> Hi Enric, > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Enric Balletbo i Serra > >> <enric.balle...@collabora.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Right, but the module license is set to GPL which means GNU Public > >>> License v2 or > >>> later, see [1]. So, there is a mismatch. In such cases I assumed GPL-2.0+ > >>> as the > >>> default. These mismatches are common so I think that should be fine for > >>> the > >>> authors, if someone is disagree just let me know and I will change. > >> > >> Ok, but I think you should add this explanation in the commit log to > >> make it clearer. > > > > If there is a conflict between the license notice and MODULE_LICENSE() > > we should go by the license notice. The license note is usually approved > > by companies, whereas MIODULE_LICENSE()s get moved, adjusted, etc. > > > > For ChromeOS kernel changes license notice is GPL v2 as documented at: > > > > https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/how-tos-and-troubleshooting/kernel-faq > > > > section "Which copyright header should I use?" > > > > Many thanks to share and clarify this. > > There is lots of mismatches so I'll send another version fixing this and > changing all to GPL v2. I assume I should also modify the MODULE_LICENSE when > it's wrong.
I'd have a round of changes having MODULE_LICENSE() match the license notice, and then separate patches for changing over to SPDX tags. Thanks. -- Dmitry
