On Fri 2017-11-17 15:06:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET) > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > Subject: Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses > > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:30:00 +0100 > > > > Add a file to the Documentation directory to describe how file licenses > > should be described in all kernel files, using the SPDX identifier, as well > > as where all licenses should be in the kernel source tree for people to > > refer to (LICENSES/). > > > > Thanks to Kate, Greg and Jonathan for review and editing and Jonas for the > > suggestions concerning the meta tags in the licenses files. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The document itself looks good, but I think it should also mention > what would be the expected values for the MODULE_LICENSE() macro and > how each license would be mapped into it. > > Right now, include/linux/module.h says: > > /* > * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free > * software modules > * > * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later] Hmm. AFAICT Greg translated GPL as GPL v1 or later. That seemed wrong... and now it seems even more wrong. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
