linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: net: dp8386x: Add MIT license along with GPL-2.0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 08:40:01 -0500
From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
CC: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        "Kumar,
 Udit" <u-kumar1@...com>, <vigneshr@...com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kip Broadhurst
	<kbroadhurst@...com>, <w.egorov@...tec.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: net: dp8386x: Add MIT license along with
 GPL-2.0

On 11:25-20240522, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:04:39AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-05-20 at 15:18 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 06:17:52PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 02:18:55PM +0530, Kumar, Udit wrote:
> > > > > Hi Conor
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 5/17/2024 8:11 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:39:20PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 04:12:26PM +0530, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > > > > > > Modify license to include dual licensing as GPL-2.0-only OR MIT
> > > > > > > > license for TI specific phy header files. This allows for Linux
> > > > > > > > kernel files to be used in other Operating System ecosystems
> > > > > > > > such as Zephyr or FreeBSD.
> > > > > > > What's wrong with BSD-2-Clause, why not use that?
> > > > > > I cut myself off, I meant to say:
> > > > > > What's wrong with BSD-2-Clause, the standard dual license for
> > > > > > bindings, why not use that?
> > > > > 
> > > > > want to be inline with License of top level DTS, which is including this
> > > > > header file
> > > > 
> > > > Unless there's a specific reason to use MIT (like your legal won't even
> > > > allow you to use BSD-2-Clause) then please just use the normal license
> > > > for bindings here.
> > > 
> > > Aligning with the DTS files is enough reason for me as that's where 
> > > these files are used. If you need to pick a permissive license for both, 
> > > then yes, use BSD-2-Clause. Better yet, ask your lawyer.
> > 
> > Conor would you agree with Rob? - my take is that he is ok with this
> > patch.
> 
> I don't think whether or not I agree matters, Rob said it's fine so it's
> fine.

Just to close the loop here: Udit pointed me to this thread and having
gone through this already[1] with internal TI teams, the feedback we
have gotten from our licensing team (including legal) is to go with
GPL2 or MIT. BSD (2 and 3 clauses) were considered, but due to varied
reasons, dropped.

That said, Udit, since you are touching this, please update in the next
revision:
Copyright:   (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments, Inc.
 to
Copyright (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://www.ti.com/

[1] https://serenity.dal.design.ti.com/lore/linux-patch-review/20240109231804.3879513-1-nm@ti.com/

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D