[PATCH] drm/amdkfd: make SPDX License expression more sound

[Kate Stewart]

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:14 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:45 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Commit b5f57384805a ("drm/amdkfd: Add sysfs bitfields and enums to uAPI")
> > adds include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h with the "GPL-2.0 OR MIT WITH
> > Linux-syscall-note" SPDX-License expression.
> >
> > The command ./scripts/spdxcheck.py warns:
> >
> >   include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h: 1:48 Exception not valid for license MIT: Linux-syscall-note
> >
> > For a uapi header, the file under GPLv2 License must be combined with the
> > Linux-syscall-note, but combining the MIT License with the
> > Linux-syscall-note makes no sense, as the note provides an exception for
> > GPL-licensed code, not for permissively licensed code.
> >
> > So, reorganize the SPDX expression to only combine the note with the GPL
> > License condition. This makes spdxcheck happy again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn at gmail.com>
> > ---
> > I am not a lawyer and I do not intend to modify the actual licensing of
> > this header file. So, I really would like to have an Ack from some AMD
> > developer here.
> >
> > Maybe also a lawyer on the linux-spdx list can check my reasoning on the
> > licensing with the exception note?
>
> I believe "MIT WITH Linux-syscall-note" is a syntactically correct
> SPDX expression but is otherwise sort of non-meaningful.
> "(GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT" is presumably what is
> intended here. But yes would be good to get confirmation from someone
> associated with AMD.

Thanks Lukas,  I agree that this is indeed clearer.
+1

Reviewed-by: kstewart at linuxfoundation.org