MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f55721ade28b2715eaf54b28a1bbfaad7b5adc0d.1640471342.git.andreyknvl@gmail.com>
 <Ycgi7GiU2udbjF2f@kroah.com> <CA+fCnZeC8PbDg_E3WWtqGBAwUs65Y7=b5DG=whN-CaOEs5uS7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <796577bb0052f4f08f58882dfc86734d72f2aa29.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <796577bb0052f4f08f58882dfc86734d72f2aa29.camel@perches.com>
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 26 Dec 2021 15:50:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+fCnZcwkmw-phG2nHW=4-dxwxUy3AGFsppk==x96uwJRSEG2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: raw-gadget: upgrade license identifier
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        andrey.konovalov@linux.dev, Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 3:02 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 14:19 +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > I wonder if checkpatch could alert about considering GPL-2.0+ when
> > adding new files.
>
> No. Licensing is up to the author/submitter.

You're right. However, knowingly choosing a license requires that the
author doesn't forget to look into the difference and understand it.

When I contributed this code, I didn't realize that GPL-2.0 and
GPL-2.0+ are different things. I was focused on the excitement of
contributing a new USB gadget driver.

What would have allowed my to not overlook this, is that if throughout
the _process_ of contributing a new module, something would _ask_ me:
"Is this really the license you want to use?".

Within my process of submitting kernel patches, that could have been
either checkpatch or an email bot.

I don't insist that this must be done by checkpatch; this could be
done by another entity. However, it would be nice to see this as an
explicit step of a standardized contribution process.

Thanks!