On 2020-08-14 07:56, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com>
>
> Greg has challenged some recent driver submitters on their license
> choices. He was correct to do so, as the choices in these instances
> did not always advance the aims of the submitters.
>
> But, this left submitters (and the folks who help them pick licenses)
> a bit confused. They have read things like
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which says:
>
> individual source files can have a different license
> which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0
>
> and Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst:
>
> We don't insist on any kind of exclusive GPL licensing,
> and if you wish ... you may well wish to release under
> multiple licenses.
>
> As written, these appear a _bit_ more laissez faire than we've been in
> practice lately. It sounds like we at least expect submitters to make
> a well-reasoned license choice and to explain their rationale. It does
> not appear that we blindly accept anything that is simply
> GPLv2-compatible.
>
> Drivers appear to be the most acute source of misunderstanding, so fix
> the driver documentation first. Update it to clarify expectations.
>
Well written! Retroactive Ack from me :)
-hpa
