Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <[email protected]>
---
drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c b/drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c
index 4a22fe152086..eee1043acfff 100644
--- a/drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c
+++ b/drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
* Copyright (c) IBM Corporation, 1998-2004.
*
* This software may be used and distributed according to the terms
- * of the GNU Public License, incorporated herein by reference.
+ * of the GNU General Public License, incorporated herein by reference.
*/
#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
--
2.39.0
On 1/22/23 11:13, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c b/drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c
> index 4a22fe152086..eee1043acfff 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/ibmasr.c
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> * Copyright (c) IBM Corporation, 1998-2004.
> *
> * This software may be used and distributed according to the terms
> - * of the GNU Public License, incorporated herein by reference.
> + * of the GNU General Public License, incorporated herein by reference.
> */
>
> #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
No. The only acceptable change would be to replace the text with the
SPDX license identifier. However, the code is not specific declaring
_which_ license is being used (2.0 only or 2.0+ or even 1.0+).
Given that, the only entity who can change the license text in this
file would be the license holder (which is presumably why it wasn't
touched when the SPDX conversion was made).
On top of that, include/linux/module.h and other files also refer to
"GNU Public License", so I don't really see the point of changing that.
If anyone is still using this driver, it would make more sense to
convert it to use the watchdog subsystem core.
Guenter
On Sunday, 22 January 2023 20:45:13 CET Guenter Roeck wrote:
> No. The only acceptable change would be to replace the text with the
> SPDX license identifier. However, the code is not specific declaring
> _which_ license is being used (2.0 only or 2.0+ or even 1.0+).
> Given that, the only entity who can change the license text in this
> file would be the license holder (which is presumably why it wasn't
> touched when the SPDX conversion was made).
You are entirely correct and my initial view of it as a spelling issue, was
wrong. Please disregard the patch.