On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 06:17:52PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 02:18:55PM +0530, Kumar, Udit wrote: > > Hi Conor > > > > On 5/17/2024 8:11 PM, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:39:20PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 04:12:26PM +0530, Udit Kumar wrote: > > > > > Modify license to include dual licensing as GPL-2.0-only OR MIT > > > > > license for TI specific phy header files. This allows for Linux > > > > > kernel files to be used in other Operating System ecosystems > > > > > such as Zephyr or FreeBSD. > > > > What's wrong with BSD-2-Clause, why not use that? > > > I cut myself off, I meant to say: > > > What's wrong with BSD-2-Clause, the standard dual license for > > > bindings, why not use that? > > > > want to be inline with License of top level DTS, which is including this > > header file > > Unless there's a specific reason to use MIT (like your legal won't even > allow you to use BSD-2-Clause) then please just use the normal license > for bindings here. Aligning with the DTS files is enough reason for me as that's where these files are used. If you need to pick a permissive license for both, then yes, use BSD-2-Clause. Better yet, ask your lawyer. Rob
