On 01/11/2018 11:42 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Shuah, > > On Thursday, 11 January 2018 17:45:15 EET Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 01/11/2018 05:55 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 10 January 2018 18:35:36 EET Shuah Khan wrote: >>>> Replace GPL license statement with SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c | 11 +---------- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c >>>> b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c index 303980b71aae..1297132acd4e >>>> 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-mc.c >>>> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ >>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >>> >>> The header doesn't match the existing license. >> >> When I added the file, I must have cut and pasted the license statement >> from another file. More on this below the deleted license lines. >> >>> Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, the standard comment style for SPDX >>> headers in the kernel is //, not /* ... */ >> >> Looks like we have 3 conventions for SPDX comment style. >> /* ... */ for headers and # ... for shell scripts and >> // for .c files. >> >> I can update it it and send v2 provided we think the change is inline >> with the original license. > > Personally I prefer the /* ... */ comment style, but I noticed that Greg used > // in his large patch the adds SPDX license headers, so I think we should > follow the established practice. I'll let you investigate to find what is > preferred :) Yeah /*...*/ is my preferred as well. Hence the autopilot change I made in the first place. I redid a couple of patches already to follow the // convention and I can do the same here. > >>>> /* >>>> >>>> * Media Controller ancillary functions >>>> * >>>> >>>> @@ -5,16 +6,6 @@ >>>> >>>> * Copyright (C) 2016 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> * Copyright (C) 2006-2010 Nokia Corporation >>>> * Copyright (c) 2016 Intel Corporation. >>>> >>>> - * >>>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by >>>> - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or >>>> - * (at your option) any later version. >> >> Are you concerned about the "or (at your option) any later version." part >> that it doesn't match? > > Yes, that's my concern. I'm personally fine with GPL-2.0-only, but you'll have > a hard time contacting all the other copyright holders if you want to > relicense this. Good luck getting hold of the appropriate legal department at > Nokia :-) Yeah. I don't think it is beneficial to continue this effort. I am going to not pursue the patch at this file. Thanks for the review. thanks, -- Shuah
