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

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Andrew,

On 09/06/2023 10:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> 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?
Yes I read it... But I didn't check the original license and ...

> You're blindly assuming that there is even a choice of license available
> to be used.
... I didn't assume anything here. I made a generic statement because 
your e-mail lead to think that all the submitter made a conscious decision.
Note that, from past discussion, we agreed that it would be fine to 
re-license from gplv2+ to gplv2-only without requesting the original 
author. So technically there is a choice.
As a side note, "blindly" is not very inclusive. We may have different 
view, but it doesn't mean yours is better than mine (and vice-versa). 
You could have express your opinion without saying "blindly" and it 
would have come across less rude.
> The submitter chooses the license to use.  You can request that they
> justify it, but you cannot demand that they change it.
Strictly speaking we can refuse any code. That count for license as 
well. Anyway, I didn't request a change here. I merely pointed out that 
any use of GPLv2+ should be justified because on Arm most of the people 
don't pay attention on the license and pick the one from an existing file.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall