[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6af9effe-89c0-7630-9a72-a5a6351e0a95@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:28:03 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: "Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danielwa@...co.com>
Cc: "xe-linux-external(mailer list)" <xe-linux-external@...co.com>,
"Marcin Wierzbicki -X (mawierzb - GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco)"
<mawierzb@...co.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: cisco: document the CrayAR
compatibles
On 07/04/2023 18:04, Daniel Walker (danielwa) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>
>> Dual license.
>>
>
> What are my choices here? I see this,
>
> # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
>
> Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
>
> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
> I'd rather use the later.
Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to
make here exception?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists