On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 10:38 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> 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."
No, that's not what I wrote.
> I'm confuse, what is your actual point? Do you trying to prove some thing?
My point is that there's a mismatch between the license described in the
comment at the top of this file and the ident used in the
MODULE_LICENSE() macro. In my comments on v2 I wrote:
By the way, you probably want to use "GPL v2" as the license ident
[...].
In this v3 I noticed the same mismatch (which was not surprising because
you already stated that "GPL" actually did match what's stated at the
comment in the top of this file). Therefor I wrote:
So only "GPL v2" matches what's found in the comment at top of this
file.
There now seem to be a few options:
- change either the comment at the top of this file or the license ident
used in MODULE_LICENSE() to make them actually match;
- show that I misread the comment at top of this file;
- or show that my reading of module.h is incorrect.
(Another option would be a patch that somehow merges the "GPL" and "GPL
v2" license idents. That patch would put an end to discussions like the
one we're having here. I'm _not_ volunteering to submit it.)
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
