Re: [PATCH] Staging: bcm: Bcmnet: fixed checkpatch script issues

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:21:28PM -0800, Vinay Sawal wrote:
> You're correct. The script checkpatch didn't complain about the
> missing license header.

Where did you get that license header from?  Are you sure you were
allowed to license the code in that specific way?

> But since the license header was missing, I
> added it. I should have listed it in the patch comments.

No, you should have done it in a separate patch, if you do that.
Remember, one patch per "thing you do" is the rule.

> Isn't it a requirement to have the GPL license header in every file ?

No.

> If true, maybe the script can be enhanced to check for missing license
> header.

That's not true, the overall license of the kernel covers the license of
the file, if not explicitly stated.  And you were stating that the
license of this file is _different_ from the license of the kernel
overall, so you had better have the legal right to be doing that.  Do
you?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/