Greg,
On Fri, Dec 03 2021 at 16:29, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:44:57AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
sorry for missing this thread. I came accross it now as I'm looking into
the licensing mess again.
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
>
> Again, sorry, but no, I am going to object to this license as you are
> only accessing a GPL-v2-only api. Any other license on a file that
> interacts with that, especially for core stuff like testing the
> functionality of this code, needs to have that same license. Sorry.
That's a bogus argument. First of all the code is dual licensed and
second we have enough code in the kernel which is licensed MIT/BSD and
happily can access the GPL-v2-only APIs.
Aside of that we have already code in the kernel which is dual licensed
GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
We just can't make it SPDX clean because copyleft-next-0.3.1 is not in
LICENSING.
While I agree that we want to keep the number of licenses as small as
possible, we cannot really dictate which dual licensing options a
submitter selects unless the license is GPL-2.0-only incompatible, which
copyleft-next is not.
Can we just get over this, add the license with the SPDX identifier and
move on?
Thanks,
tglx
