On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 01:25, Arend Van Spriel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/16/2019 10:01 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:45:19PM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > >> On 5/16/2019 7:31 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:04:07PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >>>> With ISC license text in place under the LICENSES folder switch > >>>> to using the SPDX license identifier to refer to the ISC license. > >>>> > >>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Hante Meuleman <[email protected]> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <[email protected]> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Franky Lin <[email protected]> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <[email protected]> > >>>> --- > >>>> Hi Thomas, Greg, > >>>> > >>>> The file drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c > >>>> did not have license information nor copyright notice and as such > >>>> it got included in commit b24413180f56 ("License cleanup: add SPDX > >>>> GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license"). I added you > >>>> guys as I propose to align this source file with the rest of > >>>> the driver sources and change it to ISC license and add the missing > >>>> copyright notice while at it (not sure if that warrants a separate > >>>> patch). > >>> > >>> A separate patch would be good, to make it explicit that you are > >>> changing the license of the file. > >> > >> Ok. > >> > >>> And ISC, ick, why... :) > >> > >> Because the license text in the other driver source files is a 1:1 match > >> with the ISC license. > > > > Oh, I am not disagreeing with that, yes, that is obviously the license > > of the files. Just complaining about that choice for Linux kernel code :) > > I see. > > >> Another option could be MIT license which is in the preferred folder. > >> Will have to consult our legal department about it though. > > > > Hey, if your legal department is going to get asked this, why not just > > switch it to GPLv2? That would make everything much simpler. > > Hah. Because I already know the answer to that. ;-)
It's not that obvious to me, sorry. Does your legal department require something more permissive than GPLv2? Is that worth asking them about dual-licensing? Something like GPL-2.0 OR MIT ? That assures driver is compatible with Linux, no matter what's the current lawyers interpretation of MIT vs. GPL 2.0. I believe Alan Cox once told/suggested that dual-licensing is safer for legal reasons. -- Rafał
