On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 12:41 +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > On 06/09/2015 10:15 AM, Paul Bolle wrote: > > Mistakes I've seen made since I started checking this stuff (a few > > months ago): > > - typos in the license ident, say "GPLv2", "GPL V2", or "BSD": generates > > a warning when module is loaded and taints kernel. People still get this > > wrong. A test in checkpatch for these typos was submitted a while ago, > > but it never got added; > > Any reason for that? just lost or any problem ? Submitter lost interest, I guess. Check https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/22/279 and note that there was no response. > > - not adding MODULE_LICENSE() to a module: also generates a warning when > > module is loaded and taints kernel. People still get this wrong; > > - adding MODULE_LICENSE() to built-in only code: pointless at best, and > > annoying for reviewers ("Hey, did the submitter intend to write built-in > > only code or modular code?"); > > - using "Dual BSD/GPL" but not a trace of the BSD license blurb in > > sight, while adding that blurb is one of the very few requirements this > > license actually has; > > - license mismatch, say comment blurb states "GPL v2 (or later)" but > > MODULE_LICENSE() ident states "GPL v2" only (or vice versa): very easy > > mistake to make, happens once or twice a week. > > What do you mean by vice versa? > GPL v2 header and MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") should be fine right? Not really. The license in the comment at the top of the file is just GPL v2, while the MODULE_LICENSE ident adds "or later" and thus the right to "uplicense". So which is it: just "GPL v2" or "GPL v2 (or later)"? Can't say in that case. > > Did I miss anything in that list? > > I think you miss MODULE_ALIAS problems. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/17/301 That's outside of the license stuff, but thanks for thye pointer anyway. > > I'm afraid that most of the above can only be caught reliably by > > attention to detail by submitters and reviewers. That's a pity, because > > checking for that stuff is about as boring as it gets. (What does that > > say about me?) > > yep. I have never looked at the details about these license module > stuff. But definitely great to have this list - will record it and keep > my eye on our xilinx drivers. > > BTW: Some time ago we discussed SPDX License Identifier which could > simplify license checking. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/21/21 I think I saw that fly by. Wasn't that idea shot down? Thanks, Paul Bolle -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
