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