unclear license identifiers

unclear license identifiers

[oliver Fendt]

Hi all,

I recently did a license analysis of u-boot an I came across some
unclear license information in files. I do not know whether this is
the right place to put my points, nevertheless I want to share my
findings.
1. the file https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/drivers/mmc/sdhci-cadence6.c
contains the following information SPDX-License-Identifier:
GPL-2.0-or-platform_driver which is not a valid license identifier, I
think GPL-2.0-or-later is meant here.

2. the file https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/dts/upstream/src/arm64/arm/juno-clocks.dtsi
contains the following information "This file is licensed under a dual
GPLv2 or BSD license." the BSD license term is vague is it
BSD-3-Clause or BSD-2-Clause or 0BSD or...

3. the file https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/lib/zstd/common/cpu.h
an others contain the following text:
 * Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc.
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * This source code is licensed under both the BSD-style license (found in the
 * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree) and the GPLv2 (found
 * in the COPYING file in the root directory of this source tree).
 * You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses.

when looking up the zstd repo on GitHub there is the same file
https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/lib/common/cpu.h with the
same license information. The root directory contains a COPYING file
and a LICENSE file (both are not present in u-boot) the COPYING file
contains the text of the GPL-2.0 and the LICENSE file contains the
following text:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

 * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
   list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

 * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
   and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

 * Neither the name Facebook, nor Meta, nor the names of its contributors may
   be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
   specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Which is an individualized BSD-3-Clause license. Since the
BSD-3-Clause license is very clear in the wording " must reproduce the
above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer in the documentation" the exact original license text of
the BSD-3-Clause license from Meta must be reproduced. Furthermore the
GPL-2.0 is acc. to the text GPL-2.0-only and not GPL-2.0-or-later like
it is mentioned in
https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/lib/zstd/decompress_sources.h:
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause */
/*
 * Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc.
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * This source code is licensed under both the BSD-style license (found in the
 * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree) and the GPLv2 (found
 * in the COPYING file in the root directory of this source tree).
 * You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses.

I hope that helps a bit
Ciao
Oliver

Re: unclear license identifiers

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Oliver,

On 12/19/25 4:51 PM, oliver Fendt wrote:
> [You don't often get email from ofendt@googlemail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I recently did a license analysis of u-boot an I came across some
> unclear license information in files. I do not know whether this is
> the right place to put my points, nevertheless I want to share my
> findings.
> 1. the file https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/drivers/mmc/sdhci-cadence6.c
> contains the following information SPDX-License-Identifier:
> GPL-2.0-or-platform_driver which is not a valid license identifier, I
> think GPL-2.0-or-later is meant here.
> 

+Cc @Kuan Lim Lee, @Alex Soo, @Wei Liang Lim who contributed the driver, 
they should be able to answer what the intended license was (I assume 
the same as you).

> 2. the file https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/dts/upstream/src/arm64/arm/juno-clocks.dtsi
> contains the following information "This file is licensed under a dual
> GPLv2 or BSD license." the BSD license term is vague is it
> BSD-3-Clause or BSD-2-Clause or 0BSD or...
> 

We get this file from the Linux kernel, so report that there. This file 
is more than a decade old, but arm is still active in the community so 
you should be able to find someone to answer this question.

See: 
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18.3/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-clocks.dtsi
We do NOT modify any file in dts/ folder in U-Boot. It's imported 
(merged) from 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git/ 
which is generated from the Linux kernel tree from Torvalds.

> 3. the file https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/lib/zstd/common/cpu.h
> an others contain the following text:
>   * Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc.
>   * All rights reserved.
>   *
>   * This source code is licensed under both the BSD-style license (found in the
>   * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree) and the GPLv2 (found
>   * in the COPYING file in the root directory of this source tree).
>   * You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses.
> 
> when looking up the zstd repo on GitHub there is the same file

Be careful when doing those cross-checks. We import a specific version 
of files, so you need to check at that specific time in the repo history 
what the license was.

> https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/lib/common/cpu.h with the
> same license information. The root directory contains a COPYING file
> and a LICENSE file (both are not present in u-boot) the COPYING file
> contains the text of the GPL-2.0 and the LICENSE file contains the
> following text:
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
> are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> 
>   * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
>     list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 
>   * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
>     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
>     and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> 
>   * Neither the name Facebook, nor Meta, nor the names of its contributors may
>     be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
>     specific prior written permission.
> 
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
> ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
> DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
> ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
> (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
> ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
> (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> 
> Which is an individualized BSD-3-Clause license. Since the
> BSD-3-Clause license is very clear in the wording " must reproduce the
> above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
> disclaimer in the documentation" the exact original license text of
> the BSD-3-Clause license from Meta must be reproduced. Furthermore the

IANAL, so don't know if we *really* need to have this customized BSD 
license text in our tree or if a generic BSD license text + the 
appropriate copyright notice in each imported file would be enough. The 
copyright seems to be the same in lib/zstd/decompress_sources.h in 
U-Boot and LICENSE in the zstd repo, so that could be covered this way.

> GPL-2.0 is acc. to the text GPL-2.0-only and not GPL-2.0-or-later like
> it is mentioned in
> https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/lib/zstd/decompress_sources.h:
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause */
> /*
>   * Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc.
>   * All rights reserved.
>   *
>   * This source code is licensed under both the BSD-style license (found in the
>   * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree) and the GPLv2 (found
>   * in the COPYING file in the root directory of this source tree).
>   * You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses.
> 

https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/v1.5.7/contrib/linux-kernel/decompress_sources.h. 
It's specified as later in the SPDX-License-Identifier.

Bring this to Facebook if you're unhappy about it, but that's nothing 
we'll do on our side.

Cheers,
Quentin

Re: unclear license identifiers

[Quentin Schulz]

On 1/8/26 4:47 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> On 12/19/25 4:51 PM, oliver Fendt wrote:
>> [You don't often get email from ofendt@googlemail.com. Learn why this 
>> is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recently did a license analysis of u-boot an I came across some
>> unclear license information in files. I do not know whether this is
>> the right place to put my points, nevertheless I want to share my
>> findings.
>> 1. the file https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? 
>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fu-boot%2Fu- 
>> boot%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdrivers%2Fmmc%2Fsdhci- 
>> cadence6.c&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7Cdde9821aaf3941a7103108de3f284ddd%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7C0%7C639017639504977773%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=g9tZGco8ca9ScjhMgxCxzBwZfHvzdMtCoKPg%2FeERyBo%3D&reserved=0
>> contains the following information SPDX-License-Identifier:
>> GPL-2.0-or-platform_driver which is not a valid license identifier, I
>> think GPL-2.0-or-later is meant here.
>>
> 
> +Cc @Kuan Lim Lee, @Alex Soo, @Wei Liang Lim who contributed the driver, 
> they should be able to answer what the intended license was (I assume 
> the same as you).
> 
>> 2. the file https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? 
>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fu-boot%2Fu- 
>> boot%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdts%2Fupstream%2Fsrc%2Farm64%2Farm%2Fjuno- 
>> clocks.dtsi&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7Cdde9821aaf3941a7103108de3f284ddd%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7C0%7C639017639504990800%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xIjuRJ6aCai1Qkrjyox1zoeuBeqraiHFqrURQoqyPuM%3D&reserved=0
>> contains the following information "This file is licensed under a dual
>> GPLv2 or BSD license." the BSD license term is vague is it
>> BSD-3-Clause or BSD-2-Clause or 0BSD or...
>>
> 
> We get this file from the Linux kernel, so report that there. This file 
> is more than a decade old, but arm is still active in the community so 
> you should be able to find someone to answer this question.
> 
> See: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18.3/source/arch/arm64/boot/ 
> dts/arm/juno-clocks.dtsi
> We do NOT modify any file in dts/ folder in U-Boot. It's imported 
> (merged) from https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ 
> devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git/ which is generated from the Linux 
> kernel tree from Torvalds.
> 
>> 3. the file https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? 
>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fu-boot%2Fu- 
>> boot%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Flib%2Fzstd%2Fcommon%2Fcpu.h&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7Cdde9821aaf3941a7103108de3f284ddd%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7C0%7C639017639504999145%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=V%2BBI%2BTuw8%2FJfOA9BHSmIO6Mu9tDFE%2BRI5TEZtfuHFRE%3D&reserved=0
>> an others contain the following text:
>>   * Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc.
>>   * All rights reserved.
>>   *
>>   * This source code is licensed under both the BSD-style license 
>> (found in the
>>   * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree) and the 
>> GPLv2 (found
>>   * in the COPYING file in the root directory of this source tree).
>>   * You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses.
>>
>> when looking up the zstd repo on GitHub there is the same file
> 
> Be careful when doing those cross-checks. We import a specific version 
> of files, so you need to check at that specific time in the repo history 
> what the license was.
> 

And guess who checked the version used in Linux kernel and not in U-Boot :)

>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? 
>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ffacebook%2Fzstd%2Fblob%2Fdev%2Flib%2Fcommon%2Fcpu.h&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7Cdde9821aaf3941a7103108de3f284ddd%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7C0%7C639017639505006974%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vUDaUjdiT8I5VC5suVIYVFdZDMJmVXJwoOyUdCzrlug%3D&reserved=0 with the
>> same license information. The root directory contains a COPYING file
>> and a LICENSE file (both are not present in u-boot) the COPYING file
>> contains the text of the GPL-2.0 and the LICENSE file contains the
>> following text:
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
>> modification,
>> are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>
>>   * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
>> notice, this
>>     list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>
>>   * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 
>> notice,
>>     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
>> documentation
>>     and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>
>>   * Neither the name Facebook, nor Meta, nor the names of its 
>> contributors may
>>     be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software 
>> without
>>     specific prior written permission.
>>
>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 
>> "AS IS" AND
>> ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE 
>> IMPLIED
>> WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
>> DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE 
>> LIABLE FOR
>> ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL 
>> DAMAGES
>> (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR 
>> SERVICES;
>> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER 
>> CAUSED AND ON
>> ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>> (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE 
>> OF THIS
>> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>
>> Which is an individualized BSD-3-Clause license. Since the
>> BSD-3-Clause license is very clear in the wording " must reproduce the
>> above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
>> disclaimer in the documentation" the exact original license text of
>> the BSD-3-Clause license from Meta must be reproduced. Furthermore the
> 
> IANAL, so don't know if we *really* need to have this customized BSD 
> license text in our tree or if a generic BSD license text + the 
> appropriate copyright notice in each imported file would be enough. The 
> copyright seems to be the same in lib/zstd/decompress_sources.h in U- 
> Boot and LICENSE in the zstd repo, so that could be covered this way.
> 
>> GPL-2.0 is acc. to the text GPL-2.0-only and not GPL-2.0-or-later like
>> it is mentioned in
>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? 
>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fu-boot%2Fu- 
>> boot%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Flib%2Fzstd%2Fdecompress_sources.h&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7Cdde9821aaf3941a7103108de3f284ddd%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7C0%7C639017639505015023%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hQFytbMb02p%2FbodM3WFBtQUNa9qABC8vPhMQ%2FrdL9E8%3D&reserved=0:
>> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause */
>> /*
>>   * Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc.
>>   * All rights reserved.
>>   *
>>   * This source code is licensed under both the BSD-style license 
>> (found in the
>>   * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree) and the 
>> GPLv2 (found
>>   * in the COPYING file in the root directory of this source tree).
>>   * You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses.
>>
> 
> https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/v1.5.7/contrib/linux-kernel/ 
> decompress_sources.h. It's specified as later in the SPDX-License- 
> Identifier.
> 

Here it should be https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/v1.5.2/LICENSE 
instead. But same remarks apply.

Cheers,
Quentin

Re: unclear license identifiers

[Quentin Schulz]

On 1/8/26 4:47 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> On 12/19/25 4:51 PM, oliver Fendt wrote:
>> [You don't often get email from ofendt@googlemail.com. Learn why this 
>> is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recently did a license analysis of u-boot an I came across some
>> unclear license information in files. I do not know whether this is
>> the right place to put my points, nevertheless I want to share my
>> findings.
>> 1. the file https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? 
>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fu-boot%2Fu- 
>> boot%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdrivers%2Fmmc%2Fsdhci- 
>> cadence6.c&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7Cc65d5ed72ac94f3ad7b908de4ecd611c%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7C0%7C639034841193276491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qKgOGalLMURaimcVrCtxVnwN0EEldwTGB1I15M7RdsU%3D&reserved=0
>> contains the following information SPDX-License-Identifier:
>> GPL-2.0-or-platform_driver which is not a valid license identifier, I
>> think GPL-2.0-or-later is meant here.
>>
> 
> +Cc @Kuan Lim Lee, @Alex Soo, @Wei Liang Lim who contributed the driver, 
> they should be able to answer what the intended license was (I assume 
> the same as you).
> 

Mails are bouncing.

+Cc @Hal Feng, @Minda Chen from the same company.

[...]

Cheers,
Quentin

Re: unclear license identifiers

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Hal,

Your mail didn't make it to the mailing list. It doesn't appear on the 
archive at 
https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2026-January/thread.html and the 
moderators of the mailing list cannot find your mail anywhere in the 
system (in spams or filtered mails).

Can you consider subscribing to the list (here 
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot, Subscribing to U-Boot). You can 
disable receiving all mails in the Options (Mail delivery: Disabled) if 
you don't want to receive all mails (which I understand :) ).

Can you please resend your mail once that is done so it makes it to the 
mailing list archive and I can point at this in the commit log for the 
patch fixing the license? Alternatively, you can just send the patch 
fixing the license yourself (but again, it'll need to make it to the 
mailing list :) ).

Thanks!
Quentin

On 1/9/26 7:11 AM, Hal Feng wrote:
>> On 08.01.26 23:59, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> On 1/8/26 4:47 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>>> Hi Oliver,
>>>
>>> On 12/19/25 4:51 PM, oliver Fendt wrote:
>>>> [You don't often get email from ofendt@googlemail.com. Learn why this
>>>> is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I recently did a license analysis of u-boot an I came across some
>>>> unclear license information in files. I do not know whether this is
>>>> the right place to put my points, nevertheless I want to share my
>>>> findings.
>>>> 1. the file https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fu-boot%2Fu-
>>>> boot%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdrivers%2Fmmc%2Fsdhci-
>>>>
>> cadence6.c&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7Cc65d5ed72
>> ac94f
>>>>
>> 3ad7b908de4ecd611c%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7
>> C0%7C63903
>>>>
>> 4841193276491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRy
>> dWUsIlYiOiI
>>>>
>> wLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C
>> 0%7C%
>>>>
>> 7C%7C&sdata=qKgOGalLMURaimcVrCtxVnwN0EEldwTGB1I15M7RdsU%3D&
>> reserved=0
>>>> contains the following information SPDX-License-Identifier:
>>>> GPL-2.0-or-platform_driver which is not a valid license identifier, I
>>>> think GPL-2.0-or-later is meant here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +Cc @Kuan Lim Lee, @Alex Soo, @Wei Liang Lim who contributed the
>>> +driver,
>>> they should be able to answer what the intended license was (I assume
>>> the same as you).
>>>
>>
>> Mails are bouncing.
>>
>> +Cc @Hal Feng, @Minda Chen from the same company.
> 
> It's OK to change the license to
> 
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> 
> Keep the same license as drivers/mmc/sdhci-cadence.h which was added
> in the same commit fe11aa0b8ca3.
> 
> Best regards,
> Hal

RE: unclear license identifiers

[Hal Feng]

> On 09.01.26 23:17, Quentin Schulz wrote: 
> Hi Hal,
> 
> Your mail didn't make it to the mailing list. It doesn't appear on the archive at
> https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2026-January/thread.html and the
> moderators of the mailing list cannot find your mail anywhere in the system
> (in spams or filtered mails).
> 
> Can you consider subscribing to the list (here https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-
> boot, Subscribing to U-Boot). You can disable receiving all mails in the Options
> (Mail delivery: Disabled) if you don't want to receive all mails (which I
> understand :) ).
> 
> Can you please resend your mail once that is done so it makes it to the mailing
> list archive and I can point at this in the commit log for the patch fixing the
> license? Alternatively, you can just send the patch fixing the license yourself
> (but again, it'll need to make it to the mailing list :) ).

I subscribed to the list and sent a patch [1] to fix it. Thank you for reporting this issue.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260112023948.46008-1-hal.feng@starfivetech.com/

Best regards,
Hal

> 
> On 1/9/26 7:11 AM, Hal Feng wrote:
> >> On 08.01.26 23:59, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> >> On 1/8/26 4:47 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> >>> Hi Oliver,
> >>>
> >>> On 12/19/25 4:51 PM, oliver Fendt wrote:
> >>>> [You don't often get email from ofendt@googlemail.com. Learn why
> >>>> this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
> >>>> ]
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I recently did a license analysis of u-boot an I came across some
> >>>> unclear license information in files. I do not know whether this is
> >>>> the right place to put my points, nevertheless I want to share my
> >>>> findings.
> >>>> 1. the file https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
> >>>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fu-boot%2Fu-
> >>>> boot%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdrivers%2Fmmc%2Fsdhci-
> >>>>
> >>
> cadence6.c&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7Cc65d5ed72
> >> ac94f
> >>>>
> >>
> 3ad7b908de4ecd611c%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7
> >> C0%7C63903
> >>>>
> >>
> 4841193276491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRy
> >> dWUsIlYiOiI
> >>>>
> >>
> wLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C
> >> 0%7C%
> >>>>
> >>
> 7C%7C&sdata=qKgOGalLMURaimcVrCtxVnwN0EEldwTGB1I15M7RdsU%3D&
> >> reserved=0
> >>>> contains the following information SPDX-License-Identifier:
> >>>> GPL-2.0-or-platform_driver which is not a valid license identifier,
> >>>> I think GPL-2.0-or-later is meant here.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +Cc @Kuan Lim Lee, @Alex Soo, @Wei Liang Lim who contributed the
> >>> +driver,
> >>> they should be able to answer what the intended license was (I
> >>> assume the same as you).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Mails are bouncing.
> >>
> >> +Cc @Hal Feng, @Minda Chen from the same company.
> >
> > It's OK to change the license to
> >
> > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> >
> > Keep the same license as drivers/mmc/sdhci-cadence.h which was added
> > in the same commit fe11aa0b8ca3.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Hal