Currently, it is dual licensed with GPLv2.0 and BSD. But Pierre brought
up
a concern about this conflicting with all the exports in the file being
GPLv2.0. Should this be fixed to change the license to GPLv2.0 only?
Appreciate your help in this regard.
Why ask a developer a legal question, don't you all have a whole huge
legal department who knows all of this type of thing really really well?
Would you ask a programmer a medical question?
That being said, think about trying to justify the existance of a BSD
licensed file trying to access gpl-only symbols, why in the world would
this even be a question? Why have it dual licensed at all when I was
told that Intel was NOT going to do this anymore for any kernel code?
Thanks for your patience and clarification.
We discovered the discrepancy while vetting the licenses in the files
again. Something we should be a bit more careful about moving forward.
Sorry for the trouble!
Indeed it's not our intention to use dual-licensing for debugfs at all.
Please treat this thread as a desire to be transparent with maintainers
about a miss rather than an evil scheme to work around GPL.
Ranjani and I discovered the issue only a couple of hours ago while
moving code around. I don't have any explanation for this other than a
review oversight where we saw the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and not the SPDX
line. It's a mistake, not a feature.
I just checked the history and all the changes were made by Intel,
except for your change "ASoC: SOF: no need to check return value of
debugfs_create functions", and 2 minor other fixes for memory leaks.
We'll immediately change the license to GPLv2 only, move the code in a
dedicated module that's GPLv2 only, and scan the rest of the
Intel-contributed parts to make sure we don't have this mistake in other
places.
Thanks
-Pierre
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
