Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen/ppc: Implement early serial printk on PaPR/pseries

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 09/06/2023 10:46 am, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 09/06/2023 10:43, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 09/06/2023 10:38 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 09.06.2023 11:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 09/06/2023 10:22 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/ppc/boot_of.c
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
>>>>> By default we mean to use ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/ppc/early_printk.c
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>>> ... the more modern form of this (GPL-2.0-only). Anything
>>>>> deviating from
>>>>> that may want justifying in the description.
>>>> GPL-2.0-or-later is fine.
>>> Hmm, I was merely following
>>> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-06/msg00415.html.
>>> The text at the top of ./COPYING looks to suggest -only, and I'm
>>> unaware of any other place where our default is actually written down.
>>
>> The license is chosen by the submitter/copyright holder, based on their
>> preferences/wishes.
>>
>> It's fine for Xen to say "if you've got no vested interest, we recommend
>> GPL-2.0-only", but that is strictly a recommendation and no more.
>>
>> If the submitter chooses GPL-2.0-or-later, that is their prerogative.
>> We have plenty of GPL-2.0-or-later code in Xen.
>
> From my past experience, the submitters tend to just copy the license
> from an existing file in Xen rather than explicitly choosing it. So I
> think it is fair to ask the question because our original and default
> license is GPLv2 nor GPLv2+.

Did you read the bit in the cover letter about part of this code being
derived from the out-of-tree port years ago?

You're blindly assuming that there is even a choice of license available
to be used.

The submitter chooses the license to use.  You can request that they
justify it, but you cannot demand that they change it.

~Andrew