From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"open list:MODULE SUPPORT" <linux-modules@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:MODULE SUPPORT" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module.h: Fix full name of the GPL
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:36:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9AXA/d+7wK5U5YA@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3145585.5fSG56mABF@bagend>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:32:26PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 03:49:02 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 08:34:43PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
> >
> > No patch description, really?
>
<some odd rationale to describe why your commit log is empty>
> So I could've added "The full name of the GPL is not GNU Public License, but
> GNU *General* Public License." to/as the explanation body, but I didn't
> consider that to provide extra (needed) info which wasn't clear from the
> Subject and diff.
>
> My only previous patch submission (to the linux kernel) did contain a full
> explanation body: 7074b39d83f5d71fa4f0521b28bd4fb3a22152c1
>
> *) I made a clusterfsck of similar patch submissions where I replaced "GNU
> Public License" with "GNU General Public License", and got the exact same
> comment from Bagas to several of them.
> I've (now) retracted all of those patches, except this one. In those other
> ones, I later realized I would actually be changing the license, not merely
> fixing a spelling error.
> See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/
We use SPDX for precise langauges for the license used. Patches like
these and the one you just sent are otherwise not adding more.
> AFAICT, for this patch I'm not changing the actual license, only references to
> that license, so that can still be considered spelling fixes.
> That's why I haven't requested to ignore this patch (too).
The only reference we care for is the SPDX one and that work is already done.
As such minor fixes in spelling like yours won't do any good but just
noise at this point. That's exactly why SPDX license tags were
embraced, to make this simple and let us move on with life while having
one simple codified reference to the license so we don't need to deal
with redundant patches fixing grammar on license many times.
As such this changes is not needed.
Luis
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-24 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-22 19:34 Diederik de Haas
2023-01-24 2:49 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2023-01-24 13:32 ` Diederik de Haas
2023-01-24 14:09 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2023-01-24 17:36 ` Luis Chamberlain [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y9AXA/d+7wK5U5YA@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=bagasdotme@gmail.com \
--cc=didi.debian@cknow.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®