Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:14:32 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] udf: Fix full name of the GPL
Message-ID: <20230123161432.tcbq745zw32yibr3@quack3>
References: <20230122191603.59359-1-didi.debian@cknow.org>
 <20230123154839.k3d6maptnxvb3fw3@quack3>
 <2072706.5Xk3ikgrb0@prancing-pony>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2072706.5Xk3ikgrb0@prancing-pony>
Precedence: bulk

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 <didi.debian@cknow.org>
> > > ---
> > > 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 <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR