On 10/10/2018 9:59 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Arend,
On 10-10-18 09:52, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 10/10/2018 9:28 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
So how do you want to proceed with this, do you want me to just
put the full ISC text in the header for now as the rest of brcmfmac
does?
This is not entirely true as far as I know. I assume you are referring
to this:
/*
* Copyright (c) 2010 Broadcom Corporation
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software
for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the
above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRANTIES
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
* MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE
LIABLE FOR ANY
* SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN
AN ACTION
* OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN
* CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/
As far as I recall we opted for BSD license and ISC is equivalent.
I believe it is the other way around, you opted for the ISC license
which is more or less equivalent to the 2 clause BSD, see:
https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html
https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC
The ISC text is a 1:1 match to the license used in brcmfmac, and it seems
sensible to me to be consistent and use the same license for all
brcmfmac files even if the 2 are more or less equivalent.
Looking at the ISC text you are probably right. My recollection was from
a verbal notification and the person telling probably was mistaken. So I
am fine with a follow-up patch to change all files to use ISC SPDX tag
once the ISC license is listed under LICENSES.
Hans
p.s.
Any chance you could do a patch-review of this series?
Yup and test for regressions with some of the chipsets I have here.
Regards,
Arend
