Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen/ppc: Implement early serial printk on PaPR/pseries

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Andrew,

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+.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall