On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 00:57, Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/22, Emil Velikov wrote: > > Hi all, > > Hi Emil, > > Thanks for your feedback. > > > On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 02:07, Rodrigo Siqueira > > <rodrigosiqueiramelo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > This > > > > > +/* > > > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > > > + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > > > + * (at your option) any later version. > > > + */ > > > > and this are not the same thing. > > > > The former is 2.0-only, while the explicit text is 2.0-or-later. > > > > Personally, I'd opt for 2.0-only, or even make it a dual 2.0-only OR MIT. > > Yet again, this is not my code, so not my decision to make. > > I have to admit that I do not understand too much about these issues, > however, now it is time to for learning more about it :) > > Do you have any documentation to recommend me about the issue? I want to > read it, and fix the problems that you highlighted. > WRT the SPDX identifiers you can check the official website https://spdx.org/licenses/ For some reason the kernel seems to be using the "Deprecated Licenses" GPL-2.0 instead of GPL-2.0-only, etc. IMHO it's better to stay consistent, and use the Deprecated for now. For each entry there's also a link to the full license text, etc. To provide some meat for my personal views/suggestion: - 2.0-only is narrowly scoped, while 2.0-or-later allows using any future, _yet to be written_, version of the license - MIT historically all of DRM (and graphics stack as a whole) has been MIT so that others - BSD, Solaris etc could reuse it. But as I said, it's not my call. HTH Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
