On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 6:53 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/12/23 19:46, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 6:07 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c b/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c > >> index 504be461f992a9..822bf8905bf3ce 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c > >> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sb_wdog.c > >> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ > >> /* > >> * Watchdog driver for SiByte SB1 SoCs > >> * > >> @@ -38,10 +39,6 @@ > >> * (c) Copyright 1996 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > >> * All Rights Reserved. > >> * > >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > >> - * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License > >> - * version 1 or 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation. > > > > Shouldn't this be > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0 OR GPL-2.0 > > (or in current SPDX notation GPL-1.0-only OR GPL-2.0-only) ? > > > > Nope, as it will fail spdxcheck.py. Also, SPDX specification [1] > doesn't have negation operator (NOT), thus the licensing requirement > on the above notice can't be expressed reliably in SPDX here. > > [1]: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/ The GPL identifiers in recent versions of SPDX include an `-only` and an `-or-later` variant. So I don't see why you can't represent it as `GPL-1.0-only OR GPL-2.0-only`. From what I understand the kernel requires/prefers use of the earlier approach to GPL identifiers (which was better in my opinion) under which `GPL-1.0 OR GPL-2.0` would at least be semantically similar. I don't see why you need a negation operator in this case. You have other patches where you used the `-only` identifiers. Richard
