Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dan.j.williams@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, corbet@lwn.net,
	linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: clarify driver licensing rules
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:03:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1a4de696-2409-8de5-db77-9c5a21a762e0@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200814145625.8B708079@viggo.jf.intel.com>

On 2020-08-14 07:56, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Greg has challenged some recent driver submitters on their license
> choices. He was correct to do so, as the choices in these instances
> did not always advance the aims of the submitters.
> 
> But, this left submitters (and the folks who help them pick licenses)
> a bit confused. They have read things like
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst which says:
> 
> 	individual source files can have a different license
> 	which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0
> 
> and Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst:
> 
> 	We don't insist on any kind of exclusive GPL licensing,
> 	and if you wish ... you may well wish to release under
> 	multiple licenses.
> 
> As written, these appear a _bit_ more laissez faire than we've been in
> practice lately. It sounds like we at least expect submitters to make
> a well-reasoned license choice and to explain their rationale. It does
> not appear that we blindly accept anything that is simply
> GPLv2-compatible.
> 
> Drivers appear to be the most acute source of misunderstanding, so fix
> the driver documentation first. Update it to clarify expectations.
> 

Well written! Retroactive Ack from me :)

	-hpa