Re: [PATCH 5/6] brcmfmac: Set board_type from DMI on x86 based machines

From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Franky Lin <franky.lin@broadcom.com>,
	Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@broadcom.com>,
	Chi-Hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@cypress.com>,
	Wright Feng <wright.feng@cypress.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] brcmfmac: Set board_type from DMI on x86 based machines
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:59:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d714db41-f885-7724-6a2d-982a969bb4ab@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <12cc4f0d-38d4-bb7b-8b02-dbb57db284b3@broadcom.com>

Hi Arend,

On 10-10-18 09:52, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 9:28 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> So how do you want to proceed with this, do you want me to just
>> put the full ISC text in the header for now as the rest of brcmfmac
>> does?
> 
> This is not entirely true as far as I know. I assume you are referring to this:
> 
> /*
>   * Copyright (c) 2010 Broadcom Corporation
>   *
>   * Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
>   * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
>   * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
>   *
>   * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
>   * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
>   * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>   * SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
>   * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
>   * OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
>   * CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
>   */
> 
> As far as I recall we opted for BSD license and ISC is equivalent.

I believe it is the other way around, you opted for the ISC license
which is more or less equivalent to the 2 clause BSD, see:

https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html
https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC

The ISC text is a 1:1 match to the license used in brcmfmac, and it seems
sensible to me to be consistent and use the same license for all
brcmfmac files even if the 2 are more or less equivalent.

> However, The BSD license are already in place so why not use that. I would say BSD-2-Clause should cover it. As this is a new file I guess it is up to you although I would prefer to stick with a permissive license.

I've no problem with a permissive license, I will just stick with
the ISC / same header as the rest of brcmfmac for consistency.

Regards,

Hans

p.s.

Any chance you could do a patch-review of this series?