lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: power: Add Actions Semi S900 SPS
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:11:17PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..f1aaf761112b
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> >
> > checkpatch.pl warns about this line due to not using /* ... */ syntax
> > for headers. I could fix that up on my own, but it made me realize that
> > you are licensing this file under GPL-2.0+ only, whereas the .dts[i] is
> > supposed to be dual-licensed.
> >
> > Can you please give your consent to make this
> >
> > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> >
>
> You can change the license to GPL-2.0+ OR MIT.
>
> > like my S500 and S700 bindings?
> >
> > Question: Should it still be GPL-2.0+ or the new GPL-2.0-or-later?
> >
>
> I think GPL-2.0+ is fine.

So... when I saw this I did wonder why one would knowly choose to use a
deprecated license identifier (https://spdx.org/licenses/ ).

However running `git diff v4.17..v4.18-rc1` through some filters does
indicate that GPL-2.0+ is the more popular choice by 256 to 0! Doesn't
mean you couldn't break the mould though ;-).


Daniel.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-27 16:58    [W:1.641 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site