> On 5 May 2023, at 17:44, Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 09:23:19AM +0000, Luca Fancellu wrote: >> >> >>> On 2 May 2023, at 17:13, Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 07:02:45AM +0100, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>> diff --git a/tools/include/xen-tools/arm-arch-capabilities.h >>>> b/tools/include/xen-tools/arm-arch-capabilities.h >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 000000000000..ac44c8b14344 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/tools/include/xen-tools/arm-arch-capabilities.h >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ >>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >>> >>> Do you mean GPL-2.0-only ? >>> >>> GPL-2.0 is deprecated by the SPDX project. >>> >>> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html >>> >>> >>> Besides that, patch looks fine: >>> Reviewed-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com> >> >> Thanks, I’ll fix in the next push and I’ll add your R-by > > Actually, could you use LGPL-2.1-only instead. As this code is to be > included in libxl, and libxl is supposed to be LGPL-2.1-only, it might > be better to be on the safe side and use LGPL for this new file. > > As I understand (from recent discussion about libacpi, and a quick search > only), mixing GPL and LGPL code might mean the result is GPL. So just to > be on the safe side, have this file been LGPL might be better. And it > seems that it would still be fine to include that file in GPL projects. > > Would that be ok with you?
Yes sure, I will use LGPL-2.1-only instead, no problems > > Cheers, > > -- > Anthony PERARD
