On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 17:32 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 07:59:13AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > Any chance you wish to just change the license of these files, given that
> > > you are the only one that has tried to use it for kernel code?
> >
> > There is a lot of dual-licensed (GPLv2-only|{2,3}-Clause-BSD) code already in
> > Linux. Many corporate copyright holders have well documented strong reasons
> > for wanting that. (Those policy goals and the analysis behind them, I find
> > problematic and sometimes outright wrong, but nonetheless it's their right to
> > license their copyrights that way, and the license *is* GPLv2-only
> > compatible, as is Luis'!).
> >
> > I assume that you're not asking those companies to relicense to pure
> > GPLv2-only.
>
> On the contrary, I have stated in public many times to companies that
> try to add dual-licensed new kernel code that they should only do so if
> they provide a really good reason, and pushed back on them numerous
> times. See the mailing list archives for details if you care.
>
> So yes, I am asking them, this is not anything new.
>
> Let's keep it simple please, and not add new licenses for no real good
> reason if at all possible.
You can ask but it's the submitter's choice to license their code
however they desire.
