On 10/04/2023 19:51, Daniel Walker (danielwa) wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 05:09:15PM +0000, Daniel Walker (danielwa) wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 05:28:03PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 07/04/2023 18:04, Daniel Walker (danielwa) wrote: >>>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ >>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only >>>>> >>>>> Dual license. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What are my choices here? I see this, >>>> >>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>> >>> Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it? >> >> I don't recall if I did or not. >> >>>> >>>> Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this, >>>> >>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>>> >>>> I'd rather use the later. >>> >>> Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to >>> make here exception? >> >> I'm sure I can re-license my submissions. I'd have to look into it. > > I'm _not_ sure. This is a new file - it did not exist in v1 - thus you had to write it. If you wrote it, you (or your employer) hold all copyrights, so yes, you (or your employer) can relicense it. I cannot imagine the case why employer would not like to have dual license here (it's beneficial to him, so employer would be acting against himself), but if you need to convince him, you can just say, that contributing to Open Source project means accepting the licenses in that project. The license for new bindings in this project is (GPL-2.0 or BSD-2), like pointed by checkpatch. Best regards, Krzysztof
