On 09/06/2023 10:46 am, Julien Grall wrote: > On 09/06/2023 10:43, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 09/06/2023 10:38 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 09.06.2023 11:29, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> On 09/06/2023 10:22 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/ppc/boot_of.c >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ >>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */ >>>>> By default we mean to use ... >>>>> >>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/ppc/early_printk.c >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ >>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >>>>> ... the more modern form of this (GPL-2.0-only). Anything >>>>> deviating from >>>>> that may want justifying in the description. >>>> GPL-2.0-or-later is fine. >>> Hmm, I was merely following >>> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-06/msg00415.html. >>> The text at the top of ./COPYING looks to suggest -only, and I'm >>> unaware of any other place where our default is actually written down. >> >> The license is chosen by the submitter/copyright holder, based on their >> preferences/wishes. >> >> It's fine for Xen to say "if you've got no vested interest, we recommend >> GPL-2.0-only", but that is strictly a recommendation and no more. >> >> If the submitter chooses GPL-2.0-or-later, that is their prerogative. >> We have plenty of GPL-2.0-or-later code in Xen. > > From my past experience, the submitters tend to just copy the license > from an existing file in Xen rather than explicitly choosing it. So I > think it is fair to ask the question because our original and default > license is GPLv2 nor GPLv2+.
Did you read the bit in the cover letter about part of this code being derived from the out-of-tree port years ago? You're blindly assuming that there is even a choice of license available to be used. The submitter chooses the license to use. You can request that they justify it, but you cannot demand that they change it. ~Andrew
