On 5/17/2019 8:07 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
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.
Thanks, Rafał
Indeed we want a more permissive license. I decided to stick with ISC
for now. MIT is not off the table, but pending responses from copyright
holders. If you or anyone else for that matter has additional and/or
more accurate information about dual-licensing (and its legal safety)
please let me know.
Regards,
Arend
