[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240520201807.GA1410789-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 15:18:07 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: "Kumar, Udit" <u-kumar1@...com>, vigneshr@...com, nm@...com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, 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 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.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists