Paul Bolle writes:
> [Added Rusty and Dave.]
>
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 20:51 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 11:38:55PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
>> > From a technological standpoint it would be easy to declare "GPL" (or
>> > any other string) to mean "GPL v2 compatible", w
[Added Rusty and Dave.]
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 20:51 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 11:38:55PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > From a technological standpoint it would be easy to declare "GPL" (or
> > any other string) to mean "GPL v2 compatible", which is, I think, all
> > th
On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 11:38:55PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:26 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On March 7, 2015 2:12:20 PM PST, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > I was talking about them being treated differently from technological
> > standpoint (i.e. the code), not from legal on
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:26 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On March 7, 2015 2:12:20 PM PST, Paul Bolle wrote:
> I was talking about them being treated differently from technological
> standpoint (i.e. the code), not from legal one.
>From a technological standpoint it would be easy to declare "GP
On March 7, 2015 2:12:20 PM PST, Paul Bolle wrote:
>On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:02 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle
>wrote:
>> >By that logic we might as well simplify the logic of
>> >license_is_gpl_compatible() and MODULE_LICENSE() quite a bit. Why
>chec
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:02 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle wrote:
> >By that logic we might as well simplify the logic of
> >license_is_gpl_compatible() and MODULE_LICENSE() quite a bit. Why check
> >for six variants instead of just one and be done with
On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle wrote:
>On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 13:25 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> I am not sure if anyone cares about exact version of GPL in module
>> information (2 only vs 2+) since it only used to figure out if the
>> module taints kernel or not. In fact there ar
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 13:25 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> I am not sure if anyone cares about exact version of GPL in module
> information (2 only vs 2+) since it only used to figure out if the
> module taints kernel or not. In fact there are more modules that are v2
> only that claim GPL than th
On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 01:32:25PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov schreef op vr 06-03-2015 om 16:57 [-0800]:
> > Applied with some cosmetic edits and DT bindings folded into this patch.
>
> Was one of these cosmetic edits perhaps an edit to use
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>
> in s
Dmitry Torokhov schreef op vr 06-03-2015 om 16:57 [-0800]:
> Applied with some cosmetic edits and DT bindings folded into this patch.
Was one of these cosmetic edits perhaps an edit to use
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
in sx8654.c? That would make that macro match the license stated in the
commen
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:21:55AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 07:21:38PM +0100, Sébastien Szymanski wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Sébastien Szymanski
> > ---
> > drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig | 11 ++
> > drivers/input/touchscreen/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/input
Signed-off-by: Sébastien Szymanski
---
drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig | 11 ++
drivers/input/touchscreen/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/input/touchscreen/sx8654.c | 285 +
3 files changed, 297 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/input/touchscreen/sx8654.c
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 07:21:38PM +0100, Sébastien Szymanski wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Sébastien Szymanski
> ---
> drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig | 11 ++
> drivers/input/touchscreen/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/input/touchscreen/sx8654.c | 285
> +
> 3 fil
13 matches
Mail list logo
