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