[PULL] drm-misc-next

[Thomas Hellström]

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