On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:45:44PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:

Hi Dmitry,

On 05/06/18 20:29, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:16:40PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:

quoted

Hi Enric,

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Enric Balletbo i Serra
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Right, but the module license is set to GPL which means GNU Public License v2 or
later, see [1]. So, there is a mismatch. In such cases I assumed GPL-2.0+ as the
default. These mismatches are common so I think that should be fine for the
authors, if someone is disagree just let me know and I will change.

Ok, but I think you should add this explanation in the commit log to
make it clearer.

If there is a conflict between the license notice and MODULE_LICENSE()
we should go by the license notice. The license note is usually approved
by companies, whereas MIODULE_LICENSE()s get moved, adjusted, etc.

For ChromeOS kernel changes license notice is GPL v2 as documented at:

https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/how-tos-and-troubleshooting/kernel-faq

section "Which copyright header should I use?"

Many thanks to share and clarify this.

There is lots of mismatches so I'll send another version fixing this and
changing all to GPL v2. I assume I should also modify the MODULE_LICENSE when
it's wrong.

I'd have a round of changes having MODULE_LICENSE() match the license
notice, and then separate patches for changing over to SPDX tags.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry