Kalle,
What is your position regarding license information? Should the standard GPL-V2
boiler plate be replaced with "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0" in wireless files?
Thanks,
Larry
Larry Finger wrote:
> What is your position regarding license information? Should the standard GPL-V2
> boiler plate be replaced with "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0" in wireless files?
"GPL-2.0" tag is deprecated [0] .
It should be used:
for GNU General Public License v2.0 only: "GPL-2.0-only"
for GNU General Public License v2.0 or later: "GPL-2.0-or-later"
[0] https://spdx.org/licenses/
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html
Larry Finger <[email protected]> writes:
> What is your position regarding license information? Should the
> standard GPL-V2 boiler plate be replaced with
> "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0" in wireless files?
I don't think replacing licenses with SPDX identifiers is very
important, but I can apply patches if someone wants to convert drivers.
And at the moment I'm not planning to require SPDX identifiers in new
files.
--
Kalle Valo
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 09:53:29PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Larry Finger wrote:
>
> > What is your position regarding license information? Should the standard GPL-V2
> > boiler plate be replaced with "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0" in wireless files?
>
> "GPL-2.0" tag is deprecated [0] .
>
>
> It should be used:
> for GNU General Public License v2.0 only: "GPL-2.0-only"
> for GNU General Public License v2.0 or later: "GPL-2.0-or-later"
Please read Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. We are sticking
with the "old" SPDX identifiers for now as they changed after we already
started marking up the kernel source tree.
thanks,
greg k-h