On 10/08/2018 14:01:13+0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 08/10/2018 01:26 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Replace short statement in comment with proper SPDX license tag.
> >
> > Note, for i2c-desingware-slave.c the identifier is chosen
> > in accordance with MODULE_LICENSE() macro since it is visible to user.
> > Another point to this choice is that the header seems to be copy'n'paste
> > from the other file of this very driver.
> >
> ...
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> > index 8af4c978938e..e7f9305b2dd9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> > @@ -1,23 +1,10 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > /*
> ...
> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > - * (at your option) any later version.
> > - *
>
> I'm not an expert here but which one has the priority here: "either version
> 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.", even if it was a
> copy-paste, or MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")? Just thinking can the identifier be
> "GPL-2.0-or-later" for this file?
>
See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625015832.GB30408@xxxxxxxxx/
"the license text trumps the MODULE_LICENSE() string"
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
