A suggestion to your correction. If you won't to say: "You have a mismatch between header and MODULE_LICENSE, please make sure it will match." You saying some thing like this: "I was right last time. Make module License like I saying." I'm confuse, what is your actual point? Do you trying to prove some thing? Am 06.04.2015 um 09:42 schrieb Paul Bolle: > A license nit follows. > > On Sun, 2015-04-05 at 08:26 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-asm9260.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,733 @@ >> +/* >> + * Pinctrl driver for the Alphascale ASM9260 SoC >> + * >> + * Copyright (c) 2014, Oleksij Rempel <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> + * >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it >> + * under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License, >> + * version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation. >> + */ > > This states the license of this file is GPL v2. > >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > Your reading of include/linux/module.h (see > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/5/7 ) is incorrect. Because according to > that header "GPL" means > GNU Public License v2 or later > > while "GPL v2" means > GNU Public License v2 > > So only "GPL v2" matches what's found in the comment at top of this > file. > > Thanks, > > > Paul Bolle > -- Regards, Oleksij
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature