On 1/29/19 2:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:37:47 +0100 > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> It's either "GNU *Library* General Public License version 2" or >> "GNU Lesser General Public License version *2.1*", but there was >> no "version 2.0" of the "Lesser" license. So assume that version >> 2.1 is meant here. > > I think we can assume that. > > Given that there have been several of these cases (and that there's a > lot of boilerplate in general): Should we adopt SPDX license > identifiers for QEMU, as the Linux kernel did? They also discovered and > fixed some problems/oddities while at it.
This might be cheaper than adding checkpatch rules to parse current licenses to avoid miswritten one coming back... >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >> --- >> target/s390x/cc_helper.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/excp_helper.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/fpu_helper.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/gdbstub.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/helper.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/int_helper.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/misc_helper.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/translate.c | 2 +- >> 9 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > Is this going through the trivial tree? If so, > > Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> > > I can also take this through the s390x tree. >
