On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 11:01:51AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote: > Hi, David. > > On 11/3/23 17:37, David Edelsohn wrote: > > Dual-license drm_gpuvm to GPL-2.0 OR MIT. > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c > > index 02ce6baacdad..08c088319652 100644 --- > > a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c <https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c?id=6f2eeef4a0aa9791bbba9d353641a6e067bb86c1> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c <https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c?id=f7749a549b4f4db0c02e6b3d3800ea400dd76c12> > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > > -// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT > > /* > > * Copyright (c) 2022 Red Hat. > > * > > The above SPDX License Identifier change is incorrect and no longer > > valid. The change misunderstood the syntax of SPDX license identifiers > > and boolean operations. GPL-2.0-only is the name of the license and means > > GPL 2.0 only, as opposed to GPL 2.0 or later. The "only" does not > > refer to restrictions on other licenses in the identifier and should not > > have been > > removed. The hyphens designated that the name was a single unit. > > The SPDX License Identifier boolean operators, such as OR, are a > > separate layer > > of syntax. > > The SPDX License Identifier should be > > GPL-2.0-only OR MIT > > Thanks, David > > The author has acked the change / relicensing, which is also described in > the commit title so could you please elaborate why you think it is not > valid? I think their point isn't so much about the license itself but rather the SPDX syntax to express it. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
