Re: [Intel-gfx] [PULL] drm-misc-next

From: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PULL] drm-misc-next
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:01:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1807db8f-2ba6-0838-1d4c-39ff4cb7a34d@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGWvnynOWoKT1EWkL8ELfRVxSUjm-hBQnnjb-w2Gq-tmOFm0Hg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1475 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4799 bytes --]