Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 06 Apr 2015 11:45:42 +0200 | From | Oleksij Rempel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] pinctrl: Add driver for Alphascale asm9260 pinctrl |
| |
Am 06.04.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Paul Bolle: > On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 10:38 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >> If you won't to say: "You have a mismatch between header and >> MODULE_LICENSE, please make sure it will match." >> You saying some thing like this: "I was right last time. Make module >> License like I saying." > > No, that's not what I wrote. > >> I'm confuse, what is your actual point? Do you trying to prove some thing? > > My point is that there's a mismatch between the license described in the > comment at the top of this file and the ident used in the > MODULE_LICENSE() macro. In my comments on v2 I wrote: > By the way, you probably want to use "GPL v2" as the license ident > [...]. > > In this v3 I noticed the same mismatch (which was not surprising because > you already stated that "GPL" actually did match what's stated at the > comment in the top of this file). Therefor I wrote: > So only "GPL v2" matches what's found in the comment at top of this > file. > > There now seem to be a few options: > - change either the comment at the top of this file or the license ident > used in MODULE_LICENSE() to make them actually match; > - show that I misread the comment at top of this file; > - or show that my reading of module.h is incorrect.
Ok, thank you for your review.
i send new version of patch with fixing header license to "v2 and later".
> (Another option would be a patch that somehow merges the "GPL" and "GPL > v2" license idents. That patch would put an end to discussions like the > one we're having here. I'm _not_ volunteering to submit it.) > > Thanks, > > > Paul Bolle >
-- Regards, Oleksij
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |