On Mon, 20 May 2019, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:04:12AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 20 May 2019, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 03:51:31PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > <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? > > > > I don't have a preference, but IMO sticking with the latest SPDX version is > > probably the right thing to do. I did not make an intentional choice as > > this is just what scancode exposes as concluded SPDX license identifier. > > Ok, fair enough, as long as we don't have to go and change all existing > files to one or the other, I'm happy :) Right. We won't touch the existing GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ identifiers. There is no reason to do so as tools really have to be able to deal with them. Thanks, tglx
