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 16:37:42 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
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 Wed, May 22, 2024 at 08:40:01AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 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.

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

FWIW, this is some internal-only link.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)