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