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
