lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses
On Fri 2017-11-17 15:06:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> escreveu:
>
> > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100
> >
> > Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses
> > should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well
> > as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to
> > refer to (LICENSES/).
> >
> > Thanks to Kate, Greg and Jonathan for review and editing and Jonas for the
> > suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>
> The document itself looks good, but I think it should also mention
> what would be the expected values for the MODULE_LICENSE() macro and
> how each license would be mapped into it.
>
> Right now, include/linux/module.h says:
>
> /*
> * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free
> * software modules
> *
> * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later]

Hmm. AFAICT Greg translated GPL as GPL v1 or later. That seemed
wrong... and now it seems even more wrong.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-25 19:52    [W:0.162 / U:1.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site