>Why did you pick this specific license? It does not seem to match the
>license text in this file at all.

>Be _VERY_ careful when doing stuff like this. If you get the license
>wrong, lawyers can get mad at you :(

>Also, the file name "dot11d.c" should be in the subject line, as you are
>not adding the identifer to the whole driver, only one file.

>Please fix this up and resend the whole series.

>thanks,

I read online that the default license is GPL-2.0+ as it is not indicated in the file. I think I was wrong. I would have asked the maintainer first.

Okay, I will just reset it and try to think how to deal with it . I have in mind a GPL 1.0+ as it covers from 1 and above, I don t know if it can be fine. I have to ask the maintainer. I am sorry.

Kind regards

Jules

BCS West Yorkshire Secretary

Positive action combined with positive thinking results in success - Shiv Khera

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 03:04, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:07:00AM +0000, Jules Irenge wrote:
> Add the SPDX GPL-2.0+ license identifier to fix checkpatch.pl warning
> Issue found by checkpatch.pl warning:
> "WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1"
>
> Signed-off-by: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8192e/dot11d.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/dot11d.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/dot11d.c
> index 68f53013cb95..74adb45efe73 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/dot11d.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/dot11d.c
> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+

Why did you pick this specific license? It does not seem to match the
license text in this file at all.

Be _VERY_ careful when doing stuff like this. If you get the license
wrong, lawyers can get mad at you :(

Also, the file name "dot11d.c" should be in the subject line, as you are
not adding the identifer to the whole driver, only one file.

Please fix this up and resend the whole series.

thanks,

greg k-h