From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF72C04AB4 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 18:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFBF204FD for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 18:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com header.i=@broadcom.com header.b="FhD2DTcC" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729246AbfEQSWV (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2019 14:22:21 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f67.google.com ([209.85.208.67]:44340 "EHLO mail-ed1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726295AbfEQSWV (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2019 14:22:21 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f67.google.com with SMTP id b8so11794326edm.11 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RH7omgbErV7ikDnfSDtSL1nx+YSaC1W4YouoDOopNbw=; b=FhD2DTcCcDd8U9yrnqM2N0pDQ1Cmktxpf+9bTOshgIYxyGuKyWXBQAVk4mrk5tVJCu ygTGCaGDQo/cj3SbmSGazXRSn+NZyKhfToUlfsfGAuFnZmAJ0N+vcfD3F8mDxpB3ZMAf W/s1vKu50fejwZ9X3ul2YHIOcp1r966MGTN48= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RH7omgbErV7ikDnfSDtSL1nx+YSaC1W4YouoDOopNbw=; b=ABMvLml2bjb8oJ3r27K7im9njml6jiHfbA4NgBIGDGF98M6WjiSE9NsyxbdzQ24OTo hkz7Rsx6tAlM0M338CZlfbv6QAGnwqplWFvv7EnMVZ2Qq6iJ6a10XGvm4J73yUHr4ld/ GXCJzShm0HHMMMttLvPwUNigF0rT/FrwkLpBp2fLSBBIpgPLVI5nB6b9P0U7mNN2kXW+ RxMbobKF74ID1FTW8TEBPuv5+mndzTB8VvdnaNuuqBFjVAJZl3kPHqAu5lOWwDaL5IU8 NdIr+BEoU8rX9NfF3cDT388s+AfOGvHSti/1I6sQLle1QdVqjJbJ3b8bPwcYlPFvVdN5 rn5w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWm5HKUE1zQ4HVj2/erRavK7h59M/L7OzgQxkeLiQ/3oAto1D+s zK8vv54cl9W+xdO485/uScYJ+O5EMAfj7Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzoMAS170U/T7sRHFItvSsA8XIbYU1AhkeBqmhn/t6ii5XylV2PYJQAa7ek0uFNa6RiQZvFVw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2482:: with SMTP id e2mr46193743ejb.289.1558117339721; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.129] (f140230.upc-f.chello.nl. [80.56.140.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i45sm2971338eda.67.2019.05.17.11.22.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 May 2019 11:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] brcmsmac: switch source files to using SPDX license identifier To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kalle Valo , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner References: <1558008251-13692-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <1558008251-13692-4-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <20190516173113.GA540@kroah.com> <20190516200131.GA15814@kroah.com> From: Arend Van Spriel Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 20:22:17 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On 5/17/2019 8:07 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 01:25, Arend Van Spriel > wrote: >> On 5/16/2019 10:01 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:45:19PM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >>>> On 5/16/2019 7:31 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:04:07PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>>>>> With ISC license text in place under the LICENSES folder switch >>>>>> to using the SPDX license identifier to refer to the ISC license. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner >>>>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Hante Meuleman >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Franky Lin >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Hi Thomas, Greg, >>>>>> >>>>>> The file drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c >>>>>> did not have license information nor copyright notice and as such >>>>>> it got included in commit b24413180f56 ("License cleanup: add SPDX >>>>>> GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license"). I added you >>>>>> guys as I propose to align this source file with the rest of >>>>>> the driver sources and change it to ISC license and add the missing >>>>>> copyright notice while at it (not sure if that warrants a separate >>>>>> patch). >>>>> >>>>> A separate patch would be good, to make it explicit that you are >>>>> changing the license of the file. >>>> >>>> Ok. >>>> >>>>> And ISC, ick, why... :) >>>> >>>> Because the license text in the other driver source files is a 1:1 match >>>> with the ISC license. >>> >>> Oh, I am not disagreeing with that, yes, that is obviously the license >>> of the files. Just complaining about that choice for Linux kernel code :) >> >> I see. >> >>>> 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. Thanks, Rafał Indeed we want a more permissive license. I decided to stick with ISC for now. MIT is not off the table, but pending responses from copyright holders. If you or anyone else for that matter has additional and/or more accurate information about dual-licensing (and its legal safety) please let me know. Regards, Arend