Am 06.04.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Paul Bolle: > 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. Ok, thank you for your review. i send new version of patch with fixing header license to "v2 and later". > (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 > -- Regards, Oleksij
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
