[PATCH] spi: mediatek: Re-license MTK SPI driver as Dual MIT/GPL

From: "leilk.liu" <redacted>

It is wanted to use MTK spi bus driver with GPL-2.0 or MIT license.
But now it is only licensed as GPL-2.0, so re-license it as dual
MIT/GPL.

Signed-off-by: leilk.liu <redacted>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c                 | 4 ++--
 include/linux/platform_data/spi-mt65xx.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c
index 976f73b9e299..d8a8fb0e8aa4 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT
 /*
  * Copyright (c) 2015 MediaTek Inc.
  * Author: Leilk Liu <leilk.liu@mediatek.com>

@@ -946,5 +946,5 @@ module_platform_driver(mtk_spi_driver);
 
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("MTK SPI Controller driver");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Leilk Liu <leilk.liu@mediatek.com>");
-MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
+MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
 MODULE_ALIAS("platform:mtk-spi");

diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/spi-mt65xx.h b/include/linux/platform_data/spi-mt65xx.h
index 65fd5ffd257c..b6dcd70c4c49 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/spi-mt65xx.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/spi-mt65xx.h

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT
 /*
  *  MTK SPI bus driver definitions
  *

-- 
2.18.0
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Leilk Liu [off-list ref] 於 2021年3月3日 週三 上午10:57寫道：

From: "leilk.liu" <redacted>

It is wanted to use MTK spi bus driver with GPL-2.0 or MIT license.
But now it is only licensed as GPL-2.0, so re-license it as dual
MIT/GPL.

Signed-off-by: leilk.liu <redacted>

Acked-by: Axel Lin <redacted>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:56:36AM +0800, Leilk Liu wrote:

From: "leilk.liu" <redacted>

It is wanted to use MTK spi bus driver with GPL-2.0 or MIT license.
But now it is only licensed as GPL-2.0, so re-license it as dual
MIT/GPL.

Signed-off-by: leilk.liu <redacted>

Please use your name here, not an email alias for where your name goes.

---
 drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c                 | 4 ++--
 include/linux/platform_data/spi-mt65xx.h | 2 +-

Given that these files have been licensed under the GPL only since 2015,
all changes contributed to it have only been licensed under the GPL as
well, so have you gotten approval for all of the contributors for this
change?

Can you please get your lawyer to also sign off on this license change
patch, so that we know that you have their approval for this incase
there are questions about it in the future?

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:18 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:56:36AM +0800, Leilk Liu wrote:

quoted

From: "leilk.liu" <redacted>

It is wanted to use MTK spi bus driver with GPL-2.0 or MIT license.
But now it is only licensed as GPL-2.0, so re-license it as dual
MIT/GPL.

Signed-off-by: leilk.liu <redacted>

Please use your name here, not an email alias for where your name goes.

OK, I'll fix it, thanks!

quoted

---
 drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c                 | 4 ++--
 include/linux/platform_data/spi-mt65xx.h | 2 +-

Given that these files have been licensed under the GPL only since 2015,
all changes contributed to it have only been licensed under the GPL as
well, so have you gotten approval for all of the contributors for this
change?

This is the reason that I sent this patch to ask for ACKs from all
contributors (who are all in the To mail-list) for these files.

Can you please get your lawyer to also sign off on this license change
patch, so that we know that you have their approval for this incase
there are questions about it in the future?

I need to use the code in other projects that is not with GPL-2.0.
Also, the license change is approved by Mediatek supervisor.

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:02:39PM +0800, Leilk Liu wrote:

On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:18 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:56:36AM +0800, Leilk Liu wrote:

quoted

From: "leilk.liu" <redacted>

It is wanted to use MTK spi bus driver with GPL-2.0 or MIT license.
But now it is only licensed as GPL-2.0, so re-license it as dual
MIT/GPL.

Signed-off-by: leilk.liu <redacted>

Please use your name here, not an email alias for where your name goes.

OK, I'll fix it, thanks!

quoted

quoted

---
 drivers/spi/spi-mt65xx.c                 | 4 ++--
 include/linux/platform_data/spi-mt65xx.h | 2 +-

Given that these files have been licensed under the GPL only since 2015,
all changes contributed to it have only been licensed under the GPL as
well, so have you gotten approval for all of the contributors for this
change?

This is the reason that I sent this patch to ask for ACKs from all
contributors (who are all in the To mail-list) for these files.

That wasn't obvious :)

But given that many of the contributors here do not actually own the
copyrights of their contributions, how can you be sure that the real
owners are agreeing to this?  That requires something much more "legal"
than just an "ack" on a patch.  Please work with your corporate lawyers
for how to do this correctly.

quoted

Can you please get your lawyer to also sign off on this license change
patch, so that we know that you have their approval for this incase
there are questions about it in the future?

I need to use the code in other projects that is not with GPL-2.0.

What project needs this code that you can not just base it off of your
original contribution instead?  That would not require any license
change of the kernel files, right?  Wouldn't that be easier than trying
to retain this license change over time as you will not be taking the
changes here into another project as well.

Also, the license change is approved by Mediatek supervisor.

Great, get them to also sign-off on the patch please, along with your
lawyers, so that we know all is done correctly.

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel