On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 04:37:19PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Greg,
On Fri, Dec 03 2021 at 16:29, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:44:57AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
sorry for missing this thread. I came accross it now as I'm looking into the licensing mess again.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
Again, sorry, but no, I am going to object to this license as you are only accessing a GPL-v2-only api. Any other license on a file that interacts with that, especially for core stuff like testing the functionality of this code, needs to have that same license. Sorry.
That's a bogus argument. First of all the code is dual licensed and second we have enough code in the kernel which is licensed MIT/BSD and happily can access the GPL-v2-only APIs.
Aside of that we have already code in the kernel which is dual licensed
GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1We just can't make it SPDX clean because copyleft-next-0.3.1 is not in LICENSING.
While I agree that we want to keep the number of licenses as small as possible, we cannot really dictate which dual licensing options a submitter selects unless the license is GPL-2.0-only incompatible, which copyleft-next is not.
Can we just get over this, add the license with the SPDX identifier and move on?
From what I recall, I had technical reasons I didn't take this series, but that was a long time ago and I would be glad to review it again if it were rebased and resubmitted after the next merge window is closed.
thanks,
greg k-h