Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
---
 Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst b/Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst
index f4239192bee8..655e1bd9bbe4 100644
--- a/Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst
+++ b/Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst
@@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ COPYING
 =======
 
 Copyright \(C) 2022 Red Hat, Inc. Free use of this software is granted under
-the terms of the GNU Public License (GPL).
+the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
-- 
2.39.0

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 07:12:23PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst b/Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst
> index f4239192bee8..655e1bd9bbe4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/tools/rv/common_appendix.rst
> @@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ COPYING
>  =======
>  
>  Copyright \(C) 2022 Red Hat, Inc. Free use of this software is granted under
> -the terms of the GNU Public License (GPL).
> +the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
 
Similar response as [1].

Thanks.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/Y83tLoHnM496akUH@debian.me/

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

On Monday, 23 January 2023 03:15:15 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Similar response as [1].

Please disregard this patch.
I'm now sending a similar response as I'm sending to my other patch 
submissions, which is the following:

I now consider my initial view of the issue as a spelling error, incorrect. I 
would be changing the license and IANAL. I'm also not the copyright holder 
which I believe is needed to change the license.

Apologies for the noise.

On 1/23/23 19:48, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Monday, 23 January 2023 03:15:15 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> Similar response as [1].
> 
> Please disregard this patch.
> I'm now sending a similar response as I'm sending to my other patch 
> submissions, which is the following:
> 
> I now consider my initial view of the issue as a spelling error, incorrect. I 
> would be changing the license and IANAL. I'm also not the copyright holder 
> which I believe is needed to change the license.
> 
> Apologies for the noise.

Glad to reply, but I see your reply above as if it is written by
a bot. Care to vary your sentences?

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

On Monday, 23 January 2023 14:51:57 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > Please disregard this patch.
> > I'm now sending a similar response as I'm sending to my other patch
> > submissions, which is the following:
> > 
> > I now consider my initial view of the issue as a spelling error,
> > incorrect. I would be changing the license and IANAL. I'm also not the
> > copyright holder which I believe is needed to change the license.
> > 
> > Apologies for the noise.
> 
> Glad to reply, but I see your reply above as if it is written by
> a bot. Care to vary your sentences?

I already got a bounce as I am now considered a spammer :-/

So now I got to figure out how to fix this clusterfsck, without being seen as
a spammer/bot, while also trying to minimize the burden on others.

I couldn't agree more with (the first paragraph of)
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ad99d227-ce82-319b-6323-b70ac009d0e7@roeck-us.net/
and I therefor consider this a legal issue and not a spelling one.
I can't answer the legal issue, hence the request for retraction.

Regards,
  Diederik

Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> writes:

> On Monday, 23 January 2023 14:51:57 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> > Please disregard this patch.
>> > I'm now sending a similar response as I'm sending to my other patch
>> > submissions, which is the following:
>> > 
>> > I now consider my initial view of the issue as a spelling error,
>> > incorrect. I would be changing the license and IANAL. I'm also not the
>> > copyright holder which I believe is needed to change the license.
>> > 
>> > Apologies for the noise.
>> 
>> Glad to reply, but I see your reply above as if it is written by
>> a bot. Care to vary your sentences?
>
> I already got a bounce as I am now considered a spammer :-/

No, I don't think anybody sees you as that.  Please do not worry about
Bagas; he is fond of unnecessarily picking holes in the work of others.

> So now I got to figure out how to fix this clusterfsck, without being seen as
> a spammer/bot, while also trying to minimize the burden on others.

You tried a fix which, as was pointed out, was not the right direction.
Just drop it and move onto your next contribution, and all will be well.

Thanks,

jon