On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:21:28PM -0800, Vinay Sawal wrote: > You're correct. The script checkpatch didn't complain about the > missing license header. Where did you get that license header from? Are you sure you were allowed to license the code in that specific way? > But since the license header was missing, I > added it. I should have listed it in the patch comments. No, you should have done it in a separate patch, if you do that. Remember, one patch per "thing you do" is the rule. > Isn't it a requirement to have the GPL license header in every file ? No. > If true, maybe the script can be enhanced to check for missing license > header. That's not true, the overall license of the kernel covers the license of the file, if not explicitly stated. And you were stating that the license of this file is _different_ from the license of the kernel overall, so you had better have the legal right to be doing that. Do you? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
