+ Alan
On 5/17/2019 8:07 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
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.
Hi Alan,
Rafał mentioned your name a while ago when I was struggling with the
SPDX identifiers. The drivers sources I want to modify for this
originally had a license text in the header that matches ISC. However,
one of the files did not have that and it was marked in bulk to GPLv2.
So now the question is whether I can change it to ISC like the rest or
should I make it dual like Rafał suggested.
Can you elaborate the pros and cons of dual license?
Regards,
Arend
