Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: add support for Semtech SX8654 I2C touchscreen controller

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On March 7, 2015 2:12:20 PM PST, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:02 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
>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 it?
>> 
>> Because nobody wants to go through  hundreds of drivers and change
>them?
>
>Not fun, but surely doable.
>
>> >Anyhow, "GPL" and "GPL v2" are both allowed but not identical. So,
>> >unless a patch is applied to treat them interchangeably, somehow, in
>> >the module license checking code, 
>> 
>> They are treated interchangeably as far as I can see. Where do you
>see
>> "GPL" is being treated differently than "GPL v2".
>
>I'm not going to explain here why "GPL v2" or "GPL v2 or later" differ.

I was talking about them being treated differently from technological standpoint (i.e. the code), not from legal one.

>
>"GPL" is documented to mean "GPL v2 or later". "GPL v2" is documented
>to
>mean just that (see include/linux/module.h). Again, you're free to
>submit a patch to somehow simplify that. But unless a patch like that
>is
>applied, we should make sure MODULE_LICENSE() matches the actual
>license
>of the module involved.

If you want to fix up input drivers I'll take such patch, but I am sure more such cases will sneak in unless you also make sure that there are tools (such as checkpatch.pl) that can alert developers to the inconsistency.
 


Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry