Messages in this thread | | | From | Richard Fontana <> | Date | Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:14:09 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: make SPDX License expression more sound |
| |
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:45 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@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@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.
Richard
| |