Re: [PULL] drm-misc-next

[David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3227 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 5:55 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > On 11/6/23 11:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 11:01:51AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > I think their point isn't so much about the license itself but rather
> > > the SPDX syntax to express it.
> > >
> > > Maxime
> >
> > Hm. There are a pretty large number of these in drm with the same syntax:
> >
> > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT
> >
> > So I read it as whe shouldn't have change "Licence A" to "Licence B OR
> > C" but instead should have changed it to "Licence A OR C", hence the
> > *change* (rather than the syntax) would no longer be valid.
> >
> > Perhaps I have had too little coffee this morning.
> >
> > I'd appreciate if David could clarify.
>
> Either way, one of the issue is that GPL-2.0 was deprecated in favour of
> GPL-2.0-only
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html
>
> So you effectively changed the preferred syntax to the deprecated one in
> the process of adding the new license.
>
> I think that's what David was saying, but there might be something else :)
>

Yes, that is what I was trying to express.

And thanks for posting the patch to correct the name of the identifier.
I'm not requesting that all uses of the deprecated identifier be changed in
the Linux kernel, but it would be good to not regress.

Thanks, David

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4552 bytes --]