Re: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: make SPDX License expression more sound
On 2022-01-05 2:27 p.m., Felix Kuehling wrote:
Am 2021-12-16 um 4:45 a.m. schrieb Lukas Bulwahn:
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
Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling
I applied the patch to amd-staging-drm-next.
Regards,
Felix
---
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?
include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h b/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
index e1fb78b4bf09..3e330f368917 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT WITH Linux-syscall-note */
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT */
/*
* Copyright 2021 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
*
Re: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: make SPDX License expression more sound
Am 2021-12-16 um 4:45 a.m. schrieb Lukas Bulwahn:
> 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
Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling
> ---
> 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?
>
> include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h b/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
> index e1fb78b4bf09..3e330f368917 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT WITH Linux-syscall-note */
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT */
> /*
> * Copyright 2021 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> *
Re: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: make SPDX License expression more sound
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:14 AM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> 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/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
> > ---
> > 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
Re: [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/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
> ---
> 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
[PATCH] drm/amdkfd: make SPDX License expression more sound
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
---
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?
include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h b/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
index e1fb78b4bf09..3e330f368917 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kfd_sysfs.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT WITH Linux-syscall-note */
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT */
/*
* Copyright 2021 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
*
--
2.17.1
