[PULL] drm-misc-next

[Thomas Hellström]

On 11/6/23 11:37, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> 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.
>
Ah, so a quick read-up on SPDX identifiers helped. "GPL-2.0" is 
deprecated and should not be used in new licensing. I'll put together a 
patch to fix that up.

/Thomas