[PATCH 1/3] xen-netback: fix license ident used in MODULE_LICENSE

The comment at the beginning of the file is the canonical source of
licenses for this module. Currently it contains GPL and MIT license. Fix
the code to reflect the reality.

Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
index 61b97c3..2427242 100644
--- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
+++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c

@@ -2192,5 +2192,5 @@ static void __exit netback_fini(void)
 }
 module_exit(netback_fini);
 
-MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
+MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
 MODULE_ALIAS("xen-backend:vif");

-- 
2.1.4

On 22/01/16 12:34, Wei Liu wrote:

The comment at the beginning of the file is the canonical source of
licenses for this module. Currently it contains GPL and MIT license. Fix
the code to reflect the reality.

"The MIT license" isn't really a thing.  The closest is the X11
license[1], but this not applicable here either since the text in the
drivers does not refer to X11 trademarks etc.

You can either use "GPL" which would be correct for a Linux kernel
module since the alternate only applies when distributed separately from
Linux ("or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or
incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following
license:"); or you can use "GPL and additional rights".

(Or you could just leave it as-is since "Dual BSD/GPL" is close enough.)

David

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:14:24PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:

On 22/01/16 12:34, Wei Liu wrote:

quoted

The comment at the beginning of the file is the canonical source of
licenses for this module. Currently it contains GPL and MIT license. Fix
the code to reflect the reality.

"The MIT license" isn't really a thing.  The closest is the X11
license[1], but this not applicable here either since the text in the
drivers does not refer to X11 trademarks etc.

That was referring to the license ident string in Linux.  If MIT license
isn't a thing, why would Linux have it at all?

You can either use "GPL" which would be correct for a Linux kernel
module since the alternate only applies when distributed separately from
Linux ("or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or
incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following
license:"); or you can use "GPL and additional rights".

(Or you could just leave it as-is since "Dual BSD/GPL" is close enough.)

No, I don't want to leave it as-is. That's not BSD license.

I can change that to "GPL". That is acceptable to me.

Wei.

David

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 13:49 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:14:24PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:

quoted

On 22/01/16 12:34, Wei Liu wrote:

quoted

The comment at the beginning of the file is the canonical source of
licenses for this module. Currently it contains GPL and MIT license.
Fix
the code to reflect the reality.

"The MIT license" isn't really a thing.  The closest is the X11
license[1], but this not applicable here either since the text in the
drivers does not refer to X11 trademarks etc.

That was referring to the license ident string in Linux.  If MIT license
isn't a thing, why would Linux have it at all?

The fact what include/linux/license.h:license_is_gpl_compatible includes
"Dual MIT/GPL" as an option seems to suggest that it is enough of a thing
to be validly used as the contents of a MODULE_LICENSE() thing.

It's also in https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT , the fact that it might
be confused for other licenses used by MIT notwithstanding.

FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License seems to think that the
wording most commonly called the "MIT License" might be the "Expat
license", rather than the "X11 License" which is similar but different.

Ian.

On 22/01/16 14:15, Ian Campbell wrote:

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 13:49 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:14:24PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:

quoted

On 22/01/16 12:34, Wei Liu wrote:

quoted

The comment at the beginning of the file is the canonical source of
licenses for this module. Currently it contains GPL and MIT license.
Fix
the code to reflect the reality.

"The MIT license" isn't really a thing.  The closest is the X11
license[1], but this not applicable here either since the text in the
drivers does not refer to X11 trademarks etc.

That was referring to the license ident string in Linux.  If MIT license
isn't a thing, why would Linux have it at all?

The fact what include/linux/license.h:license_is_gpl_compatible includes
"Dual MIT/GPL" as an option seems to suggest that it is enough of a thing
to be validly used as the contents of a MODULE_LICENSE() thing.

"Dual MIT/GPL" is used exactly once in the source in a file that has no
license text and there is no other documentation.

David

The fact what include/linux/license.h:license_is_gpl_compatible includes
"Dual MIT/GPL" as an option seems to suggest that it is enough of a thing
to be validly used as the contents of a MODULE_LICENSE() thing.

Yes. The MIT licence most definitely exists, and people know what it
means.

Also nobody should be changing the licence on anything unless they have
the written permission of all rights holders on record, so it's best to
leave it be 8)

Alan

From: One Thousand Gnomes <redacted>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:25:21 +0000

quoted

The fact what include/linux/license.h:license_is_gpl_compatible includes
"Dual MIT/GPL" as an option seems to suggest that it is enough of a thing
to be validly used as the contents of a MODULE_LICENSE() thing.

Yes. The MIT licence most definitely exists, and people know what it
means.

Also nobody should be changing the licence on anything unless they have
the written permission of all rights holders on record, so it's best to
leave it be 8)

+1

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 08:25:21PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:

quoted

The fact what include/linux/license.h:license_is_gpl_compatible includes
"Dual MIT/GPL" as an option seems to suggest that it is enough of a thing
to be validly used as the contents of a MODULE_LICENSE() thing.

Yes. The MIT licence most definitely exists, and people know what it
means.

Also nobody should be changing the licence on anything unless they have
the written permission of all rights holders on record, so it's best to
leave it be 8)

I knew from the beginning anything related to license will be fun. :-)

In this particular case, I don't think I need to get confirmation from
all rights holder because they've agreed to the licenses listed in
the comment. I'm merely fixing a bug in code.

I understand people have different opinion on how this should be
interpreted. And I'm not a lawyer. Let's just leave it be now and divert
our energy to more useful things in life.

Wei.

Alan