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?

Thanks,

Thomas