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

[Conor Dooley]

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 08:40:01AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 11:25-20240522, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Just to close the loop here: Udit pointed me to this thread and having
> gone through this already[1] with internal TI teams, the feedback we
> have gotten from our licensing team (including legal) is to go with
> GPL2 or MIT. BSD (2 and 3 clauses) were considered, but due to varied
> reasons, dropped.

> [1] https://serenity.dal.design.ti.com/lore/linux-patch-review/20240109231804.3879513-1-nm@xxxxxx/

FWIW, this is some internal-only link.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature