Hi,
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The above SPDX License Identifier change is incorrect and no longer
valid.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.
Thanks,
Thomas
