On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 12:07:43PM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > + 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? You need to talk to your lawyers about that. Please ask this of them. thanks, greg k-h
