On 15/12/2017 at 08:59:15 +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > Alexandre, Linux > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Linus Walleij > <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Philippe Ombredanne > > <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) > >>> > >>> Wow never saw that before. OK I guess. > >> > >> That's the new thing. Less legalese boilerplate, and more code for the > >> better IMHO. > >> > >> You can check the doc patches from Thomas for details [1] > >> > >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934 > > > > Yeah I'm aware of this part, but I didn't see that combined license > > before. > > > > What is the reason for not just using GPL 2 here? > > Linus, > That'a a question for Alexandre that submitted this patch in the first > place, not me. > > Alexandre? > I'm not the one taking that decision and I don't think this choice has a particular issue (we use the same one for device trees). I guess the idea behind it is to be able to reuse the same code in other non-GPL projects. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
