On 2020-08-14 07:56, Dave Hansen wrote: > > From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Greg has challenged some recent driver submitters on their license > choices. He was correct to do so, as the choices in these instances > did not always advance the aims of the submitters. > > But, this left submitters (and the folks who help them pick licenses) > a bit confused. They have read things like > Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which says: > > individual source files can have a different license > which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0 > > and Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst: > > We don't insist on any kind of exclusive GPL licensing, > and if you wish ... you may well wish to release under > multiple licenses. > > As written, these appear a _bit_ more laissez faire than we've been in > practice lately. It sounds like we at least expect submitters to make > a well-reasoned license choice and to explain their rationale. It does > not appear that we blindly accept anything that is simply > GPLv2-compatible. > > Drivers appear to be the most acute source of misunderstanding, so fix > the driver documentation first. Update it to clarify expectations. > Well written! Retroactive Ack from me :) -hpa
