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

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Benjamin,

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard
<benjamin.gaignard at linaro.org> wrote:
> 2018-01-24 0:32 GMT+01:00 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>:
>> 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 at st.com>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >>   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.
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne