Hi Laurent, Am Dienstag, den 22.05.2018, 13:37 +0300 schrieb Laurent Pinchart: > Hi Lucas, > > On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 12:29:21 EEST Lucas Stach wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 20.05.2018, 14:05 -0300 schrieb Fabio Estevam: > > > > From: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > Adopt the SPDX license identifier headers to ease license compliance > > > management. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-hdmi.c | 7 +------ > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-hdmi.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-hdmi.c index ec8d000..3bc62d5 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-hdmi.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-hdmi.c > > > @@ -1,15 +1,10 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > > The GPL-2.0+ tag is deprecated, please use GPL-2.0-or-later instead. > > > > Same comment applies to some other SPDX conversion patches from you. > > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst still mentions GPL-2.0+, not GPL-2.0- > or-later. Until the documentation gets updated, I think we should stick to > GPL-2.0+. The (what I would consider canonical) description of the license [1] has a pretty fat DEPRECATED tag attached to it. I would prefer not to pull in patches to convert the license stuff to a tag that's already deprecated. Regards, Lucas [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0+.html _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
