Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] drm/lsdc: add drm driver for loongson display controller

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 12:08, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:53:35AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/lsdc/lsdc_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/lsdc/lsdc_connector.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..ae5fc0c90961
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/lsdc/lsdc_connector.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,443 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > +/*
> > > + * Copyright 2020 Loongson Corporation
> > > + *
> > > + * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> > > + * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> > > + * "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
> > > + * without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> > > + * distribute, sub license, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
> > > + * permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
> > > + * the following conditions:
> > > + *
> > > + * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> > > + * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> > > + * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
> > > + * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS, AUTHORS AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM,
> > > + * DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR
> > > + * OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE
> > > + * USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> > > + *
> > > + * The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the
> > > + * next paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions
> > > + * of the Software.
> >
> > This does not look like compliant with GPL-2.0. You cannot call a
> > license GPL-2.0 and restrict it with some other provisions.
>
> That's the MIT license.  It's not the GPL-2.0 license but it is
> compliant.

It's compliant when included as "OR" for example in SPDX tag. The
current solution - SPDX and MIT license text - is not the proper way
to describe this. Otherwise one could argue that both licenses apply
at the same time and one has to fulfill both of them, which is
ridiculous. There is a SPDX tag for the proper case - GPL or MIT.

Best regards,
Krzysztof