On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 03:51:31PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Based on 2 normalized pattern(s): > > 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 this program is distributed in the > hope that it will be useful but without any warranty without even > the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular > purpose see the gnu general public license for more details you > should have received a copy of the gnu general public license along > with this program if not write to the free software foundation inc > 51 franklin street fifth floor boston ma 02110 1301 usa > > > 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 [no]_[pad]_[ctrl] any later version this program is > distributed in the hope that it will be useful but without any > warranty without even the implied warranty of merchantability or > fitness for a particular purpose see the gnu general public license > for more details you should have received a copy of the gnu general > public license along with this program if not write to the free > software foundation inc 51 franklin street fifth floor boston ma > 02110 1301 usa > > extracted by the scancode license scanner the SPDX license identifier > > GPL-2.0-or-later > > has been chosen to replace the boilerplate/reference in 176 file(s). > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <snip> Commenting only on the first instance of this in the series: > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51-eukrea-cpuimx51.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51-eukrea-cpuimx51.dtsi > @@ -1,19 +1,6 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later I thought we were sticking with the "GPL-2.0+" string for this? I know we support both in the scripts and the license parsing, is it just a "up to the sender" as to what they prefer? thanks, greg k-h
