On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 04:37:19PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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? >From what I recall, I had technical reasons I didn't take this series, but that was a long time ago and I would be glad to review it again if it were rebased and resubmitted after the next merge window is closed. thanks, greg k-h
