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