On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote: > On 11/6/23 11:20, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > 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 > > Hm. There are a pretty large number of these in drm with the same syntax: > > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT > > So I read it as whe shouldn't have change "Licence A" to "Licence B OR > C" but instead should have changed it to "Licence A OR C", hence the > *change* (rather than the syntax) would no longer be valid. > > Perhaps I have had too little coffee this morning. > > I'd appreciate if David could clarify. Either way, one of the issue is that GPL-2.0 was deprecated in favour of GPL-2.0-only https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html So you effectively changed the preferred syntax to the deprecated one in the process of adding the new license. I think that's what David was saying, but there might be something else :) Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
