RE: [PATCH 3/8] staging: fsl-mc: Add SPDX license identifiers

[Bogdan Purcareata]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:13 PM
> To: Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@xxxxxxx>; Ruxandra Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu
> <ruxandra.radulescu@xxxxxxx>; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx;
> stuyoder@xxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx; Roy Pledge
> <roy.pledge@xxxxxxx>; Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@xxxxxxx>; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@xxxxxxx>; Nipun Gupta
> <nipun.gupta@xxxxxxx>; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] staging: fsl-mc: Add SPDX license identifiers
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:19:05PM +0200, Bogdan Purcareata wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpbp-cmd.h b/drivers/staging/fsl-
> mc/bus/dpbp-cmd.h
> > index 5904836..1ac8ec6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpbp-cmd.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpbp-cmd.h
> > @@ -1,33 +1,8 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause) */
> 
> Hm, I don't think you want to do that.  How can a Linux driver subsytem
> that wraps calls to the kernel's driver core (which are GPL-only), be
> accessed by BSD-3 code?

For this particular file, the original license was dual GPL/BSD. The patch removes the license text and adds an equivalent SPDX tag.

> If I didn't know any better, I would think you were trying to create a
> "GPL Condom" here :)
> 
> Anyway, why all of the BSD-3 stuff here?  That makes no sense for kernel
> code at all, and this is a relicensing of the file, have you gotten
> legal approval of everyone that has modified the file while it was under
> the GPL-v2 only text to be able to change it to BSD-3 as well?

Previous to this patch, the files under drivers/staging/fsl-mc/ use a combination of GPL-2.0 and (GPL-2.0+ / BSD-3-Clause) licenses (expressed by the full license text). 

The original intent was to have an uniform dual license for all files. Before making this change, I have consulted the other current contributors, but based on your feedback, we think it's best to keep the current licenses.

> Careful, this is a _VERY_ tricky thing to do right.  I need a
> signed-off-by on this type of patch from your legal council to ensure
> that they know exactly what you are doing, and have reviewed it
> properly, before I can take it.
> 
> Hint, stick to the existing license in the files, it makes more sense,
> you are not going to be taking this code out of Linux and putting it
> anywhere.

I will send a v2 keeping the existing license for each file - removing the full license text and adding a SPDX tag. This way there will be no change from a legal standpoint.

Thank you for the feedback!

Bogdan