Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[Philippe CORNU]

Hi Laurent, Benjamin & Philippe,

I sent an updated version of the patch following your comments
Big thank you,

Philippe :-)

On 02/08/2018 03:09 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> Benjamin,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard
> <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2018-01-24 0:32 GMT+01:00 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Hi Philippe,
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, 23 January 2018 12:25:51 EET Philippe CORNU wrote:
>>>> On 01/23/2018 12:30 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 22 January 2018 12:26:08 EET Philippe Cornu wrote:
>>>>>> Add SPDX identifiers to the Synopsys DesignWare MIPI DSI
>>>>>> host controller driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@xxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c | 6 +-----
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c index
>>>>>> 46b0e73404d1..e06836dec77c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c
>>>>>> @@ -1,12 +1,8 @@
>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>
>>>>> According to Documentation/process/license-rules.txt this would change
>>>>> the existing license. The correct identifier is GPL-2.0+.
>>>>
>>>> You are right, I did not put the correct identifier :(
>>>>
>>>> After reading more spdx.org, I wonder if the correct value should be
>>>> GPL-2.0-or-later instead of GPL-2.0+
>>>>
>>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html
>>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0+.html
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion?
>>>
>>> I agree in principle, and I've even asked for that before, but I've been told
>>> that we should stick to the license identifiers defined in Documentation/
>>> process/license-rules.txt. The file might get updated to use GPL-2.0-or-later
>>> and GPL-2.0-only later, and kernel sources will likely then get patched in one
>>> go.
>>
>> + Philippe O. to check what I'm writing just below.
>>
>> In -next branch I only see reference to GPL-2.0+ identifier so for me
>> it fine to use it here.
>> Is that right ? or should we use GPL-2.0-or-later keyword ?
> 
> 
> Sorry for the late reply!
> IMHO it is essential to stick to what is in the kernel doc, meaning
> that you should not use the GPL-2.0-or-later identifier until it is
> part of the kernel doc. Otherwise this is going to be a mess ;)
> Consistency matters a lot.
>