On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 01:32:25PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov schreef op vr 06-03-2015 om 16:57 [-0800]:
> > Applied with some cosmetic edits and DT bindings folded into this patch.
>
> Was one of these cosmetic edits perhaps an edit to use
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>
> in sx8654.c?
No it wasn't.
> That would make that macro match the license stated in the
> comment at the top of that file.
I am not sure if anyone cares about exact version of GPL in module
information (2 only vs 2+) since it only used to figure out if the
module taints kernel or not. In fact there are more modules that are v2
only that claim GPL than the ones claiming GPL v2.
dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")'`; do grep -H '2 as published' $file; done | wc -l
259
dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")'`; do grep -H '2 as published' $file; do ne | wc -l
150
Also:
dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")'`; do grep -H '2 or ' $file; done | wc -l
68
dtor@dtor-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")'`; do grep -H '2 or ' $file; done | wc -l
237
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
