Re: checkpatch.pl error might be false positive

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

(resending adding lkml)
(adding Josh Triplett and Jesse Brandeburg)

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 13:01 -0800, Ravi Patel wrote:
> Hi Andy, Joe
> 
> My name is Ravi Patel and I am working for AppliedMicro.
> I am planning to submit APM X-Gene SoC QMTM drivers to open source after
> running checkpatch.pl
> I am seeing following error saying remove FSF address from my patch, which
> I don't have in my source/header files.
> 
> ERROR: Do not include the paragraph about writing to the Free Software
> Foundation's mailing address from the sample GPL notice. The FSF has
> changed addresses in the past, and may do so again. Linux already includes
> a copy of the GPL.
> #1580: FILE: include/misc/xgene/xgene_qmtm.h:19:
> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License$
> 
> Here is my License banner in xgene_qmtm.h
> There are no tabs in my banner
> 
> /*
>  * AppliedMicro X-Gene SOC Queue Manager/Traffic Manager driver
>  *
>  * Copyright (c) 2013 Applied Micro Circuits Corporation.
>  * Author: Ravi Patel <rapatel@apm.com>
>  *         Keyur Chudgar <kchudgar@apm.com>
>  *         Fushen Chen <fchen@apm.com>
>  *
>  * This program is free software; you can redistribute  it and/or modify it
>  * under  the terms of  the GNU General  Public License as published by the
>  * Free Software Foundation;  either version 2 of the  License, or (at your
>  * option) any later version.
>  *
>  * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>  * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>  * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>  * GNU General Public License for more details.
>  *
>  * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>  *
>  */
> 
> Can you please check if the error is false positive.

Josh?

Is the intent that the "copy of the GNU General Public License"
statement should also be removed?

Jesse had a question recently about the appropriateness of the
removal given the license text.

http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg262152.html