On Thursday 13 January 2022 12:50:23 CET Kalle Valo wrote: > Jerome Pouiller <Jerome.Pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Apache-2.0 is not allowed in the kernel. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/staging/wfx/hif_api_cmd.h | 2 +- > > drivers/staging/wfx/hif_api_general.h | 2 +- > > drivers/staging/wfx/hif_api_mib.h | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_api_cmd.h b/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_api_cmd.h > > index b0aa13b23a51..b1829d01a5d9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_api_cmd.h > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_api_cmd.h > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > > -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 */ > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or Apache-2.0 */ > > Is the Apache-2.0 license really mandatory? LICENSES/dual/Apache-2.0 is > not really supportive. [usual "I am not a lawyer" preamble] hmm... I don't think it is really mandatory. However, I would more confident if we could keep the original license also (I think the idea behind is to not prevent someone to reuse this header in any other project). -- Jérôme Pouiller _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
