| Message ID | 1453466057-7176-2-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
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: > > 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: > > 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. > > > > 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: >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:14:24PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> 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 <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:25:21 +0000 >> 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: > > 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
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");
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 <wei.liu2@citrix.com> --- drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)