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. 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. Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
