On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 09:46 -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > > > +/* Module information */
> > > > > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("MT8195-MT6359-RT1011-RT5682 ALSA SoC
> > > > > machine
> > > > > driver");
> > > > > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>");
> > > > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> > > >
> > > > "GPL" is enough
> > > >
> > >
> > > I see many projects use GPL v2 here, and all mediatek projects
> > > use
> > > GPL
> > > v2, too.
> > > I'm not sure which one is better.
> > > Do I need to modify this?
>
> See
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html?highlight=module_license*id1__;Iw!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!0xwqsodizM7jFI4lwpT7_h2bk6xHtdNb32YDo2lneZ9u-cs5hAqqdqTci89qK8FwLg$
>
>
> Loadable kernel modules also require a MODULE_LICENSE() tag. This tag
> is
> neither a replacement for proper source code license information
> (SPDX-License-Identifier) nor in any way relevant for expressing or
> determining the exact license under which the source code of the
> module
> is provided.
>
> “GPL”
>
> Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This does not express any
> distinction between GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The exact
> license
> information can only be determined via the license information in the
> corresponding source files.
>
> “GPL v2”
>
> Same as “GPL”. It exists for historic reasons.
>
> So "GPL v2" is not incorrect but for new contributions you might as
> well
> use the recommended tag.
Got it.
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
I will correct it in V2.
Trevor
