On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:19:52PM -0200, Matheus Tavares Bernardino wrote: > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:13 PM Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Matheus, > > > > Hi, Fabio > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:01 PM Matheus Tavares > > <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This patch adds the SPDX GPL-2.0-only license identifier to ad2s90.c, > > > which solves the checkpatch.pl warning: > > > "WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1". > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/iio/resolver/ad2s90.c | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/resolver/ad2s90.c b/drivers/staging/iio/resolver/ad2s90.c > > > index 949ff55ac6b0..f439da721df8 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/resolver/ad2s90.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/resolver/ad2s90.c > > > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > > > This should be: > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > Hm, but it seems that the identifier "GPL-2.0" is deprecated, look: > https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html. It has been updated to > "GPL-2.0-only" in license list v3 > (https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-only.html). Is there some other > reason to use the deprecated "GPL-2.0" that I'm not aware of? Yes, please read the in-kernel documentation for all of this at: Documentation/process/license-rules.rst Long story short, we started the adding of these tags to the kernel before the crazyness of the "-only" markings for GPL in spdx. Let's keep it this way for now, if we ever get the whole kernel finished, then we can revisit the markings and maybe do a wholesale conversion, if it's really needed. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
