Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:05:44 +0200 (EET)
From:   =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
cc:     linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>,
        Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
        Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com>,
        Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Marco Pagani <marpagan@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 9/9] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: Change MODULE_LICENSE() to
 GPL
In-Reply-To: <Y4xr+nmx7m66+KsL@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <2f692caa-bbf3-b5c6-ce11-af8148f1293c@linux.intel.com>
References: <20221202100841.4741-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> <20221202100841.4741-10-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> <Y4xr+nmx7m66+KsL@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-538923647-1670179839=:1606"
Content-ID: <7d35311e-c7-4d76-33f7-3126acf7f5bd@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-538923647-1670179839=:1606
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-ID: <a776598-a041-963f-ae15-994e22f9a29f@linux.intel.com>

On Sun, 4 Dec 2022, Greg KH wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 12:08:41PM +0200, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> > "GPL v2" should not be used as MODULE_LICENSE(). "GPL" is enough, see
> > commit bf7fbeeae6db ("module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL
> > v2" bogosity") for more details.
> 
> And that commit says that leaving "GPL v2" is just fine and dandy and
> should not be an issue at all.

From reading just it's changelog, it's hard to come into that conclusion
(in fact, the opposite reading is very much crafted into many of the 
wordings in the changelog, e.g., stating that "GPL" is "completely 
sufficient" and that other ways assume wrongly distinction, etc.).

Only after reading now the diff itself, I can see that being the case.

> Please do not change the license for no good reason.  That commit is NOT
> a good reason to change it at all.
> 
> so NAK on this patch, sorry.

Okay, I'm certainly fine dropping it :-).

The reason why I added this change was checkpatch giving this:

WARNING: Prefer "GPL" over "GPL v2" - see commit bf7fbeeae6db ("module: 
Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity")

...And bf7fbeeae6db's changelog then further reinforced that "GPL" is 
sufficient.

I guess checkpatch wanted to give the warning only for new stuff but 
since I was moving code around it misdetected the moved bits as new.


-- 
 i.
--8323329-538923647-1670179839=:1606--