Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: net: dp8386x: Add MIT license along with GPL-2.0

[Conor Dooley]

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:04:39AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-05-20 at 15:18 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Conor would you agree with Rob? - my take is that he is ok with this
> patch.

I don't think whether or not I agree matters, Rob said it's fine so it's
fine.

Cheers,
Conor.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature