On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 09:43:39AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 6:53 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 5/12/23 19:46, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 6:07 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c b/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c > > >> index 504be461f992a9..822bf8905bf3ce 100644 > > >> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c > > >> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c > > >> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ > > >> /* > > >> * Watchdog driver for SiByte SB1 SoCs > > >> * > > >> @@ -38,10 +39,6 @@ > > >> * (c) Copyright 1996 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > > >> * All Rights Reserved. > > >> * > > >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > > >> - * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License > > >> - * version 1 or 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation. > > > > > > Shouldn't this be > > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0 OR GPL-2.0 > > > (or in current SPDX notation GPL-1.0-only OR GPL-2.0-only) ? > > > > > > > Nope, as it will fail spdxcheck.py. Also, SPDX specification [1] > > doesn't have negation operator (NOT), thus the licensing requirement > > on the above notice can't be expressed reliably in SPDX here. > > > > [1]: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/ > > The GPL identifiers in recent versions of SPDX include an `-only` and > an `-or-later` variant. But Linux does not use the newer versions of SPDX given that we started the conversion before the "-only" variant came out. Let's stick with the original one please before worrying about converting to a newer version of SPDX and mixing things up. thanks, greg k-h
