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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2017 18:26:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOFm3uG-b5RYC4Wxms2dPw659cAUPvdVHeZOG8fjfkQji7wyMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: usbvision: remove unneeded DRIVER_LICENSE #define
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab@s-opensource.com> wrote:
> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:01:41 +0100
> Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> escreveu:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> <mchehab@s-opensource.com> wrote:
>> > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:18:26 +0100
>> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:
>> >
>> > Its license is actually GPL 2.0+
>> >
>> > So, I would actually change it to:
>> >
>> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>
>> Mauro:
>>
>> actually even if it sounds weird the module.h doc [1] is clear on this topic:
>>
>>  * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later]
>>  * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2]
>>
>> So it should be "GPL" IMHO.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/module.h?id=refs/tags/v4.10#n175
>>
>
> Oh! Yeah, you're right. I would add that on the Kernel documentation
> somewhere, perhaps with the new document that Thomas is writing
> about SPFX.
> The Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst doc mentions
> MODULE_LICENSE, but doesn't define the expected values for it.


Good point!

Thomas:
Is this something that should be taken care of?
If yes, I may be able take a crack at it sometimes next week.

unless...

Mauro:
if you have a docwriter soul and want to make a good deed for the
holidays, may you feel like starting a doc patch? :P

e.g. something along the lines:

"Here are the valid values for MODULE_LICENSE as found in module.h ...
And here are the rules to set a MODULE_LICENSE and how this relates to
the top level SPDX-License-Identifier..."

BTW, I wished we could align the MODULE_LICENSE values with the SPDX
ids for clarity and as this would inject normalized SPDX license tags
in the Elf binaries.

But that 's likely impossible as it would break a truck load of
out-of-tree module macros and out-of-tree module loading command line
tools everywhere (such as busybox and many other) so the (computing)
world would crawl to a halt. *sigh*

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

From 1584354207583909983@xxx Fri Nov 17 22:31:55 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584342085865135600
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread