On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:07:31AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2020-07-12 11:02:17, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:50:59AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Sun 2020-07-12 10:43:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:24:53AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/trigger/ledtrig-tty.c > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@ > > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > > > > > > 2.0+ is preffered. > > > > > > > > No it is not, that's up to the developer. > > > > > > For code I maintain, yes it is. > > > > That's up to the developer of the code, not the maintainer, as the > > maintainer is not the copyright holder of it. For new files, it is up > > to the author of that code. No maintainer should impose a license rule > > like this on their subsystem, that's just not ok at all. The only > > "rule" is that it is compatible with GPLv2, nothing else. > > No, see for example device tree rules. Note, I don't agree with that rule, and if you have noticed, it's not really enforced. > Plus, IIRC it was you who asked the developer to "doublecheck with > their legal" when you seen GPL-2.0+. You can't really prevent me from > doing the same. Asking to verify that a specific license is what they really want it to be and they know the ramifications of it is NOT the same as saying "For code in the subsystem I maintain it has to be GPLv2+". thanks, greg k-h
