Re: [PATCH] watchdog: sb_wdog: add missing SPDX license identifier

On 5/11/26 14:44, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] The applied SPDX-License-Identifier (GPL-2.0-only) contradicts the explicit license boilerplate already present in the file.
> --
> 
> commit 64e66089a6e522c77284fd01a8849e12869d23c7
> Author: Mayur Kumar <[email protected]>
> 
> watchdog: sb_wdog: add missing SPDX license identifier
> 
> This patch resolves a checkpatch warning by adding an SPDX license
> identifier to the driver source file. It defaults the license to
> GPL-2.0-only.
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c b/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c
>> index eaa68b54cf567..03db71a43d6fe 100644
>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c
>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c
>> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>   /*
>>    * Watchdog driver for SiByte SB1 SoCs
>>    *
> 
> Does the GPL-2.0-only SPDX identifier contradict the explicit license
> boilerplate already present in this file?
> 
> Looking at the existing header comment block:
> 
> drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c:
>   *	This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>   *	modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
>   *	version 1 or 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> 
> Applying GPL-2.0-only restricts the file to GPLv2 only, which strips the
> explicitly granted GPLv1 permission and creates a licensing ambiguity for
> downstream users.
> 
> Should the SPDX identifier be updated to match the existing boilerplate text?
> 

Sashiko has a point here. I don't know how to handle this without effectively
changing the license. I'll drop this patch.

Guenter