On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 01:25, Arend Van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/16/2019 10:01 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:45:19PM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> >> On 5/16/2019 7:31 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:04:07PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >>>> With ISC license text in place under the LICENSES folder switch
> >>>> to using the SPDX license identifier to refer to the ISC license.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Franky Lin <franky.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Hi Thomas, Greg,
> >>>>
> >>>> The file drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c
> >>>> did not have license information nor copyright notice and as such
> >>>> it got included in commit b24413180f56 ("License cleanup: add SPDX
> >>>> GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license"). I added you
> >>>> guys as I propose to align this source file with the rest of
> >>>> the driver sources and change it to ISC license and add the missing
> >>>> copyright notice while at it (not sure if that warrants a separate
> >>>> patch).
> >>>
> >>> A separate patch would be good, to make it explicit that you are
> >>> changing the license of the file.
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >>
> >>> And ISC, ick, why... :)
> >>
> >> Because the license text in the other driver source files is a 1:1 match
> >> with the ISC license.
> >
> > Oh, I am not disagreeing with that, yes, that is obviously the license
> > of the files. Just complaining about that choice for Linux kernel code :)
>
> I see.
>
> >> Another option could be MIT license which is in the preferred folder.
> >> Will have to consult our legal department about it though.
> >
> > Hey, if your legal department is going to get asked this, why not just
> > switch it to GPLv2? That would make everything much simpler.
>
> Hah. Because I already know the answer to that. ;-)
It's not that obvious to me, sorry. Does your legal department require
something more permissive than GPLv2? Is that worth asking them about
dual-licensing? Something like
GPL-2.0 OR MIT
? That assures driver is compatible with Linux, no matter what's the
current lawyers interpretation of MIT vs. GPL 2.0. I believe Alan Cox
once told/suggested that dual-licensing is safer for legal reasons.
--
Rafał
