[PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: gpio: Add a header file for Amlogic C3 SoCs

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 11/07/2023 20:05, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/gpio/amlogic-c3-gpio.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR MIT) */
>>> Any reason to deviate from the usual license terms for bindings, which is
>>> "GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause"?
>>
>> I initially used the license commonly used by Amlogic (reference: meson-s4-gpio.h):
>> ```
>> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>> ```
>>
>> But when I checked the patch, some warnings appeared:
>> ```
>> WARNING: DT binding headers should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR .*)
>> #37: FILE: include/dt-bindings/gpio/amlogic-c3-gpio.h:1:
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>> ```
>> So I followed the prompts and changed the license.
>>
>> Can I ignore this warning and use the (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) license?
> 
> If the tools are happy then I suppose you are okay.. I'll leave that to
> Rob or Krzysztof, but if you have a reason for diverging that seems fine
> to me.

It is very weird that company wants GPLv3 and even weirder that it
agrees for GPLv4 and GPLv5 (GPLv5 might force Amlogic to do some
interesting things...). I am pretty sure company lawyers don't want it
and just do not understand licenses or someone forgot to actually check
it. Anyway, it's fine for Linux kernel, if you really need it.

However the argument was "meson-s4-gpio.h" has it, which is not really
correct argument or accurate. Is it derivative work that you need the
same license? If not, why presence of something causes you to do the
same without thinking?

If Amlogic requires GPLv3 or GPL4 or GPLv2000, please confirm it here
with your official email. Otherwise, if it is not a derivative work
confirm that. Otherwise just go with what checkpatch asks you.

Best regards,
Krzysztof