On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:14 AM Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:45 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulw...@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.bulw...@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.
Thanks Lukas, I agree that this is indeed clearer. +1 Reviewed-by: kstew...@linuxfoundation.org