On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:02:26AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 11:59 -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> > > As always, comments are welcome.
> >
> > Are nits welcome too?
> >
> > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPLv2");
> >
> > You probably meant
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")
> >
> > Didn't that trigger a warning or error?
>
> checkpatch showed no warning about that, not even with --strict option.
> I believe both ways are fine. But I can add the space.Documentation says it should be with space: /* * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free * software modules * * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later] * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2] * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more] * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 * or BSD license choice] * "Dual MIT/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 * or MIT license choice] * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 * or Mozilla license choice] * * The following other idents are available * * "Proprietary" [Non free products] * * There are dual licensed components, but when running with Linux it is the * GPL that is relevant so this is a non issue. Similarly LGPL linked with GPL * is a GPL combined work. * * This exists for several reasons * 1. So modinfo can show license info for users wanting to vet their setup * is free * 2. So the community can ignore bug reports including proprietary modules * 3. So vendors can do likewise based on their own policies */ #define MODULE_LICENSE(_license) MODULE_INFO(license, _license) -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
