On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 09:46 -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+/* Module information */
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("MT8195-MT6359-RT1011-RT5682 ALSA SoC
machine
driver");
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Trevor Wu [off-list ref]");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");

"GPL" is enough

I see many projects use GPL v2 here, and all mediatek projects
use
GPL
v2, too.
I'm not sure which one is better.
Do I need to modify this?

See

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html?highlight=module_license*id1__;Iw!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!0xwqsodizM7jFI4lwpT7_h2bk6xHtdNb32YDo2lneZ9u-cs5hAqqdqTci89qK8FwLg$

 

Loadable kernel modules also require a MODULE_LICENSE() tag. This tag
is
neither a replacement for proper source code license information
(SPDX-License-Identifier) nor in any way relevant for expressing or
determining the exact license under which the source code of the
module
is provided.

“GPL”

Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This does not express any
distinction between GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The exact
license
information can only be determined via the license information in the
corresponding source files.

“GPL v2”

Same as “GPL”. It exists for historic reasons.

So "GPL v2" is not incorrect but for new contributions you might as
well
use the recommended tag.

Got it.
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
I will correct it in V2.

Trevor


_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek