[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: make SPDX License expression more sound
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:45 AM Lukas Bulwahn <> 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/ 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 <>
> ---
> 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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-16 18:15    [W:0.078 / U:3.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site