2019年1月7日(月) 20:37 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi Mita-san, > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 02:12:45AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: > > Replace GPL license statements with SPDX license identifiers (GPL-2.0). > > > > Cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> > > Cc: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/media/i2c/mt9m001.c | 5 +---- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m001.c b/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m001.c > > index a1a85ff..65ff59d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m001.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m001.c > > @@ -1,11 +1,8 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > /* > > * Driver for MT9M001 CMOS Image Sensor from Micron > > * > > * Copyright (C) 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > - * > > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > > - * published by the Free Software Foundation. > > */ > > > > #include <linux/videodev2.h> > > The MODULE_LICENSE macro at the end of the file lists "GPL" as the license, > i.e. including later versions. I'm not sure what was the intention > originally. I guess it's safer to stick to 2.0, at least unless the > original author is able to shed some light into this. I've come across the same thought, and I found the following conversation. https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/24/457 So I think MODULE_LICENSE() mismatch can be resolved in the future.
