On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:04:39AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Mon, 2024-05-20 at 15:18 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > 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. > > Conor would you agree with Rob? - my take is that he is ok with this > patch. I don't think whether or not I agree matters, Rob said it's fine so it's fine. Cheers, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
