On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:01:41 +0100
> Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:18:26 +0100
>> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>> >
>> > Its license is actually GPL 2.0+
>> >
>> > So, I would actually change it to:
>> >
>> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>
>> Mauro:
>>
>> actually even if it sounds weird the module.h doc [1] is clear on this topic:
>>
>> * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later]
>> * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2]
>>
>> So it should be "GPL" IMHO.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/module.h?id=refs/tags/v4.10#n175
>>
>
> Oh! Yeah, you're right. I would add that on the Kernel documentation
> somewhere, perhaps with the new document that Thomas is writing
> about SPFX.
> The Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst doc mentions
> MODULE_LICENSE, but doesn't define the expected values for it.
Good point!
Thomas:
Is this something that should be taken care of?
If yes, I may be able take a crack at it sometimes next week.
unless...
Mauro:
if you have a docwriter soul and want to make a good deed for the
holidays, may you feel like starting a doc patch? :P
e.g. something along the lines:
"Here are the valid values for MODULE_LICENSE as found in module.h ...
And here are the rules to set a MODULE_LICENSE and how this relates to
the top level SPDX-License-Identifier..."
BTW, I wished we could align the MODULE_LICENSE values with the SPDX
ids for clarity and as this would inject normalized SPDX license tags
in the Elf binaries.
But that 's likely impossible as it would break a truck load of
out-of-tree module macros and out-of-tree module loading command line
tools everywhere (such as busybox and many other) so the (computing)
world would crawl to a halt. *sigh*
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
