Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <[email protected]>
---
fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/udf/ecma_167.h b/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
index de17a97e8667..4ddc8b62d30f 100644
--- a/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
+++ b/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
- * GNU Public License ("GPL").
+ * GNU General Public License ("GPL").
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
diff --git a/fs/udf/osta_udf.h b/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
index 157de0ec0cd5..660818f7b850 100644
--- a/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
+++ b/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
- * GNU Public License ("GPL").
+ * GNU General Public License ("GPL").
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
--
2.39.0
On Sun 22-01-23 20:16:03, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
> fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Thanks. I've added the patch to my tree.
Honza
>
> diff --git a/fs/udf/ecma_167.h b/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
> index de17a97e8667..4ddc8b62d30f 100644
> --- a/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
> +++ b/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
> * derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
> *
> * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> - * GNU Public License ("GPL").
> + * GNU General Public License ("GPL").
> *
> * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
> * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> diff --git a/fs/udf/osta_udf.h b/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
> index 157de0ec0cd5..660818f7b850 100644
> --- a/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
> +++ b/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
> * derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
> *
> * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> - * GNU Public License ("GPL").
> + * GNU General Public License ("GPL").
> *
> * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
> * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> --
> 2.39.0
>
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
On Monday, 23 January 2023 16:48:39 CET Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 22-01-23 20:16:03, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
> > fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks. I've added the patch to my tree.
While I initially saw it as a spelling error, I've since changed my view that
it would actually be changing the license and I'm not qualified to do that.
See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/
While it seemed reasonable to *assume* that the GNU General Public License was
meant, I (now) think that is not sufficient when it comes to legal/license
material, which this is. I think, but I'm not a lawyer.
So maybe it's better to remove/revert it from your tree?
Sorry,
Diederik
On Mon 23-01-23 16:58:22, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Monday, 23 January 2023 16:48:39 CET Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sun 22-01-23 20:16:03, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
> > > fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > Thanks. I've added the patch to my tree.
>
> While I initially saw it as a spelling error, I've since changed my view that
> it would actually be changing the license and I'm not qualified to do that.
> See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/
>
> While it seemed reasonable to *assume* that the GNU General Public License was
> meant, I (now) think that is not sufficient when it comes to legal/license
> material, which this is. I think, but I'm not a lawyer.
>
> So maybe it's better to remove/revert it from your tree?
OK, let's err on the safe side ;) Patch removed.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR