[PATCH 1/3] Staging: iio: adis16209: Use SPDX identifier

Lars-Peter Clausen lars at metafoo.de
Sun Feb 18 12:14:27 UTC 2018


On 02/18/2018 01:08 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 02/18/2018 01:02 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:07:57 +0530
>> Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 17:01 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
>>>> Hi Shreeya,
>>>>   
>>> Hi Himanshu,
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 09:34:56PM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote:  
>>>>>
>>>>> Use SPDX identifier format instead of GPLv2. Also rearrange the
>>>>> headers in alphabetical order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498 at gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c | 7 +++----
>>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c
>>>>> b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c
>>>>> index 7fcef9a..e3d9f80 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16209.c
>>>>> @@ -1,19 +1,18 @@
>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>>>>  /*
>>>>>   * ADIS16209 Dual-Axis Digital Inclinometer and Accelerometer
>>>>>   *
>>>>>   * Copyright 2010 Analog Devices Inc.
>>>>> - *
>>>>> - * Licensed under the GPL-2 or later.  
>>>> I see that you too are doing similar cleanup which I did a while ago
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/12/255  
>>>
>>> Yes, Jonathan suggested me to work on adis16209.
>>> Your patches were quite useful for me :)
>>>
>>>> where I got some update suggestions for the patch series. It would be
>>>> great if you could update this patch series consistent with the
>>>> reviewers.
>>>>
>>>> For eg: in this patch you changed 
>>>>
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>>>
>>>> and therefore
>>>>
>>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>>
>>>> should also be changed to 
>>>>
>>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); 
>>>>
>>>> as explained by	Philippe Ombredanne to me in my patch series.  
>>>
>> I'm not sure that was exactly what Philippe was suggesting.
>> He was making the point that the licensing was inconsistent without
>> saying which option should be chosen.
>>
>> We will need to seek clarification from Analog Devices
>> on what their opinion on this is.
>>
>> Lars / Michael, any clarification on the right way to resolve this
>> inconsistency?
> 
> I can't speak for the intended license for code I wasn't involved in.
> 
> But I'd in general if there are conflicting licensing information and you
> want to be on the safe side choose the more restrictive license. E.g. GPL2+
> is compatible with GPL2, but GPL2 is not compatible with GPL2+. So to be
> compatible with both choose GPL2.

This is not legal advice btw.

I personally would stay away from messing with the licenses of code I do not
own. Not everybody seems to agree yet that a SPDX tag is equivalent to a
explicit licensing statement.



More information about the devel mailing list