On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:02 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >By that logic we might as well simplify the logic of > >license_is_gpl_compatible() and MODULE_LICENSE() quite a bit. Why check > >for six variants instead of just one and be done with it? > > Because nobody wants to go through hundreds of drivers and change them? Not fun, but surely doable. > >Anyhow, "GPL" and "GPL v2" are both allowed but not identical. So, > >unless a patch is applied to treat them interchangeably, somehow, in > >the module license checking code, > > They are treated interchangeably as far as I can see. Where do you see > "GPL" is being treated differently than "GPL v2". I'm not going to explain here why "GPL v2" or "GPL v2 or later" differ. "GPL" is documented to mean "GPL v2 or later". "GPL v2" is documented to mean just that (see include/linux/module.h). Again, you're free to submit a patch to somehow simplify that. But unless a patch like that is applied, we should make sure MODULE_LICENSE() matches the actual license of the module involved. Paul Bolle -- 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
