Hi Grek,

On 25/06/18 03:57, Greg KH wrote:

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:14:24PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:

quoted

Hi Fabio,

On 05/06/18 20:04, Fabio Estevam wrote:

quoted

Hi Enric,

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Enric Balletbo i Serra
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Adopt the SPDX license identifier headers to ease license compliance
management.

Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <redacted>
---

Changes in v2:
- [6/9] Do not remove last paragraph.

 drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 34 ++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
index 79eb29550c34..91b2839c12df 100644
--- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
+++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c

@@ -1,25 +1,15 @@
-/*
- * ChromeOS EC keyboard driver
- *
- * Copyright (C) 2012 Google, Inc
- *
- * This software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public
- * License version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and

Original text says GPL-2.0...

quoted

- * may be copied, distributed, and modified under those terms.
- *
- * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
- * GNU General Public License for more details.
- *
- * This driver uses the Chrome OS EC byte-level message-based protocol for
- * communicating the keyboard state (which keys are pressed) from a keyboard EC
- * to the AP over some bus (such as i2c, lpc, spi).  The EC does debouncing,
- * but everything else (including deghosting) is done here.  The main
- * motivation for this is to keep the EC firmware as simple as possible, since
- * it cannot be easily upgraded and EC flash/IRAM space is relatively
- * expensive.
- */
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+

but here you add a GPL-2.0+ type.

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.

NO!

The license text is what you need to follow as almost everyone gets the
MODULE_LICENSE() stuff wrong.  You can not follow the MODULE_LICENSE
marking for determining GPLv2 vs. GPLv2+ at this point in time.  After
we get the SPDX stuff all cleaned up then we can go and fix up the
MODULE_LICENSE mismatch.

So again, always defer to the license text in the file, NOT the
MODULE_LICENSE() marking.

Many thanks for your feedback, Dmitry already told me that I was doing wrong
this and I sent another version following the license text, so this patchset was
superseded for v3 [1].

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/925906/

Thanks,
 Enric

thanks,

greg k-h