On Sunday, 22 January 2023 20:45:13 CET Guenter Roeck wrote: > No. The only acceptable change would be to replace the text with the > SPDX license identifier. However, the code is not specific declaring > _which_ license is being used (2.0 only or 2.0+ or even 1.0+). > Given that, the only entity who can change the license text in this > file would be the license holder (which is presumably why it wasn't > touched when the SPDX conversion was made). You are entirely correct and my initial view of it as a spelling issue, was wrong. Please disregard the patch.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
