udf: Fix full name of the GPL

[PATCH] udf: Fix full name of the GPL

Posted by Diederik de Haas 2 years, 7 months ago

Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
---
 fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
 fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/udf/ecma_167.h b/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
index de17a97e8667..4ddc8b62d30f 100644
--- a/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
+++ b/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
  *    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
  *
  * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
- * GNU Public License ("GPL").
+ * GNU General Public License ("GPL").
  *
  * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
  * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
diff --git a/fs/udf/osta_udf.h b/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
index 157de0ec0cd5..660818f7b850 100644
--- a/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
+++ b/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
  *    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
  *
  * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
- * GNU Public License ("GPL").
+ * GNU General Public License ("GPL").
  *
  * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
  * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
-- 
2.39.0

Re: [PATCH] udf: Fix full name of the GPL

Posted by Jan Kara 2 years, 7 months ago

On Sun 22-01-23 20:16:03, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
> ---
>  fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
>  fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Thanks. I've added the patch to my tree.

								Honza

> 
> diff --git a/fs/udf/ecma_167.h b/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
> index de17a97e8667..4ddc8b62d30f 100644
> --- a/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
> +++ b/fs/udf/ecma_167.h
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
>   *    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
>   *
>   * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> - * GNU Public License ("GPL").
> + * GNU General Public License ("GPL").
>   *
>   * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
>   * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> diff --git a/fs/udf/osta_udf.h b/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
> index 157de0ec0cd5..660818f7b850 100644
> --- a/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
> +++ b/fs/udf/osta_udf.h
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
>   *    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
>   *
>   * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> - * GNU Public License ("GPL").
> + * GNU General Public License ("GPL").
>   *
>   * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
>   * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> -- 
> 2.39.0
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH] udf: Fix full name of the GPL

Posted by Diederik de Haas 2 years, 7 months ago

On Monday, 23 January 2023 16:48:39 CET Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 22-01-23 20:16:03, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
> > ---
> > fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
> > fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Thanks. I've added the patch to my tree.

While I initially saw it as a spelling error, I've since changed my view that 
it would actually be changing the license and I'm not qualified to do that.
See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/

While it seemed reasonable to *assume* that the GNU General Public License was 
meant, I (now) think that is not sufficient when it comes to legal/license 
material, which this is. I think, but I'm not a lawyer.

So maybe it's better to remove/revert it from your tree?

Sorry,
  Diederik

Re: [PATCH] udf: Fix full name of the GPL

Posted by Jan Kara 2 years, 7 months ago

On Mon 23-01-23 16:58:22, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Monday, 23 January 2023 16:48:39 CET Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sun 22-01-23 20:16:03, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
> > > ---
> > > fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
> > > fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Thanks. I've added the patch to my tree.
> 
> While I initially saw it as a spelling error, I've since changed my view that 
> it would actually be changing the license and I'm not qualified to do that.
> See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/
> 
> While it seemed reasonable to *assume* that the GNU General Public License was 
> meant, I (now) think that is not sufficient when it comes to legal/license 
> material, which this is. I think, but I'm not a lawyer.
> 
> So maybe it's better to remove/revert it from your tree?

OK, let's err on the safe side ;) Patch removed.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR