>As the wording of the text says to refer to the LICENSE file, and that
>is GPLv2, that should be the license for this file as well.

>But if you do not understand license issues, I would stay away from this
>and work on other tasks.  It's tricky and people get upset if you get it
>wrong :)

>thanks,

>greg k-h

I am sorry about that , I will not guess next time. I will be more careful.
I will update it to v2. I have also seen in the header it's GPL-2.0 🙈

*Jules*
*..*
BCS West Yorkshire Secretary
Positive action combined with positive thinking results in success - Shiv
Khera


On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 22:40, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:15:03PM +0000, Jules Octave wrote:
> > >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.
>
> Where did you read that?  The default license for the Linux kernel is
> "GPL-2.0" no "+" at all.
>
> > 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.
>
> As the wording of the text says to refer to the LICENSE file, and that
> is GPLv2, that should be the license for this file as well.
>
> But if you do not understand license issues, I would stay away from this
> and work on other tasks.  It's tricky and people get upset if you get it
> wrong :)
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>