From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753878AbcAVNu1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:50:27 -0500 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:34353 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753617AbcAVNuW (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:50:22 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,331,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="333327841" Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:49:43 +0000 From: Wei Liu To: David Vrabel CC: Wei Liu , Xen-devel , Ian Campbell , "open list:XEN NETWORK BACKEND DRIVER" , open list , Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen-netback: fix license ident used in MODULE_LICENSE Message-ID: <20160122134943.GB1691@citrix.com> References: <1453466057-7176-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <1453466057-7176-2-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <56A22B30.3020206@citrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56A22B30.3020206@citrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-DLP: MIA2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:14:24PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > On 22/01/16 12:34, Wei Liu wrote: > > The comment at the beginning of the file is the canonical source of > > licenses for this module. Currently it contains GPL and MIT license. Fix > > the code to reflect the reality. > > "The MIT license" isn't really a thing. The closest is the X11 > license[1], but this not applicable here either since the text in the > drivers does not refer to X11 trademarks etc. > That was referring to the license ident string in Linux. If MIT license isn't a thing, why would Linux have it at all? > You can either use "GPL" which would be correct for a Linux kernel > module since the alternate only applies when distributed separately from > Linux ("or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or > incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following > license:"); or you can use "GPL and additional rights". > > (Or you could just leave it as-is since "Dual BSD/GPL" is close enough.) > No, I don't want to leave it as-is. That's not BSD license. I can change that to "GPL". That is acceptable to me. Wei. > David > > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License >