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 :)

Maxime