Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:22:49 +0100 | From | Heiko Carstens <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/9] s390: net: add SPDX identifiers to the remaining files |
| |
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:38:04PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > It's good to have SPDX identifiers in all files to make it easier to > audit the kernel tree for correct licenses. > > Update the drivers/s390/net/ files with the correct SPDX license > identifier based on the license text in the file itself. The SPDX > identifier is a legally binding shorthand, which can be used instead of > the full boiler plate text. > > This work is based on a script and data from Thomas Gleixner, Philippe > Ombredanne, and Kate Stewart. > > Cc: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Ursula Braun <ubraun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > --- > diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/fsm.c b/drivers/s390/net/fsm.c > index 8c14c6c3ad3d..f0c7c182b077 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/net/fsm.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/net/fsm.c > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > /** > * A generic FSM based on fsm used in isdn4linux > *
What's the rationale to add GPL-2.0 to this file? This seems to be a bit confusing since this file has no explicit license template, except this one:
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
Which, according to include/linux/module.h translates to "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later]
On the other hand there are files like drivers/s390/char/zcore.c which just contain a statement "License: GPL", which was converted to GPL-1.0+ (see patch 4 of this series). Right now I'm not saying that anything is wrong here, but I'd like to understand the rationale.
| |