On 06/09/2015 01:59 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: > 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. will see. >>> - 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. ok. Will check all our drivers we have to get it synchronized but I expect that a lot of drivers have problems there. >>> 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? Not sure about current status. Thanks, Michal -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91 w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/ Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
