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 at 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