Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:13:55 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-doc <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] COPYING: create a new file with points to the Kernel
 license files
Message-ID: <20180322121355.GA16195@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20180322095414.24019-1-mchehab@s-opensource.com>
 <20180322095414.24019-2-mchehab@s-opensource.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180322095414.24019-2-mchehab@s-opensource.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 06:54:13AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> +++ b/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
> @@ -4,15 +4,17 @@ Linux kernel licensing rules
>  ============================
>  
>  The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public
> -License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as published by the Free Software
> -Foundation, and provided in the COPYING file.  This documentation file is
> -not meant to replace the COPYING file, but provides a description of how
> -each source file should be annotated to make the licensing it is governed
> -under clear and unambiguous.
> -
> -The license in the COPYING file applies to the kernel source as a whole,
> -though individual source files can have a different license which is
> -required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0::
> +version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as written at LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0,

^^^ you dropped the word 'License' here

Also, I think this should read "as provided in", not "as written at".

> +with an explicit syscall exception described at

s/at/in/

> +LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note, as described in the COPYING file.

This phrasing is awkward with "desribed" used twice in the same sentence ...

> +This documentation file is not meant to replace the Kernel's license,
> +but provides a description of how each source file should be annotated
> +to make the licensing it is governed under clear and unambiguous.

I'd rather this said:

This documentation file provides a description of how each source file
should be annotated to make its license clear and unambiguous.