On 02/18/2018 01:08 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 02/18/2018 01:02 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:07:57 +0530 >> Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 17:01 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: >>>> Hi Shreeya, >>>> >>> Hi Himanshu, >>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 09:34:56PM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Use SPDX identifier format instead of GPLv2. Also rearrange the >>>>> headers in alphabetical order. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c | 7 +++---- >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c >>>>> b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c >>>>> index 7fcef9a..e3d9f80 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c >>>>> @@ -1,19 +1,18 @@ >>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ >>>>> /* >>>>> * ADIS16209 Dual-Axis Digital Inclinometer and Accelerometer >>>>> * >>>>> * Copyright 2010 Analog Devices Inc. >>>>> - * >>>>> - * Licensed under the GPL-2 or later. >>>> I see that you too are doing similar cleanup which I did a while ago >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/12/255 >>> >>> Yes, Jonathan suggested me to work on adis16209. >>> Your patches were quite useful for me :) >>> >>>> where I got some update suggestions for the patch series. It would be >>>> great if you could update this patch series consistent with the >>>> reviewers. >>>> >>>> For eg: in this patch you changed >>>> >>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ >>>> >>>> and therefore >>>> >>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); >>>> >>>> should also be changed to >>>> >>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); >>>> >>>> as explained by Philippe Ombredanne to me in my patch series. >>> >> I'm not sure that was exactly what Philippe was suggesting. >> He was making the point that the licensing was inconsistent without >> saying which option should be chosen. >> >> We will need to seek clarification from Analog Devices >> on what their opinion on this is. >> >> Lars / Michael, any clarification on the right way to resolve this >> inconsistency? > > I can't speak for the intended license for code I wasn't involved in. > > But I'd in general if there are conflicting licensing information and you > want to be on the safe side choose the more restrictive license. E.g. GPL2+ > is compatible with GPL2, but GPL2 is not compatible with GPL2+. So to be > compatible with both choose GPL2. This is not legal advice btw. I personally would stay away from messing with the licenses of code I do not own. Not everybody seems to agree yet that a SPDX tag is equivalent to a explicit licensing statement. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
