| Message ID | 20240517104226.3395480-1-u-kumar1@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt-bindings: net: dp8386x: Add MIT license along with GPL-2.0 | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success | |
| robh/patch-applied | success |
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. > > While at this, update the TI copyright year to sync with current year > to indicate license change. > > Cc: Kip Broadhurst <kbroadhurst@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@ti.com> > --- > include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h | 4 ++-- > include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83869.h | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h b/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h > index 6fc4b445d3a1..2b7bc9c692f2 100644 > --- a/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h > @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ > -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR MIT */ > /* > * Device Tree constants for the Texas Instruments DP83867 PHY > * > * Author: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com> > * > - * Copyright: (C) 2015 Texas Instruments, Inc. > + * Copyright: (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments, Inc. > */ IANAL but about 1/4 of this file was written by Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@phytec.de>. It would be good to Cc: him and make sure he does not object. The other file is fine, it was all Dan Murphy's work. Andrew
Thanks Andrew On 5/17/2024 7:26 PM, Andrew Lunn 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. >> >> While at this, update the TI copyright year to sync with current year >> to indicate license change. >> >> Cc: Kip Broadhurst <kbroadhurst@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@ti.com> >> --- >> include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h | 4 ++-- >> include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83869.h | 4 ++-- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h b/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h >> index 6fc4b445d3a1..2b7bc9c692f2 100644 >> --- a/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h >> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h >> @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ >> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR MIT */ >> /* >> * Device Tree constants for the Texas Instruments DP83867 PHY >> * >> * Author: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com> >> * >> - * Copyright: (C) 2015 Texas Instruments, Inc. >> + * Copyright: (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments, Inc. >> */ > IANAL > > but about 1/4 of this file was written by Wadim Egorov > <w.egorov@phytec.de>. It would be good to Cc: him and make sure he > does not object. Wadim is copied. Also will take care of copying in next version if any. > The other file is fine, it was all Dan Murphy's work. > > Andrew
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?
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?
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 eg https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j722s-evm.dts#L1
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. Cheers, Conor.
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. Rob
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 guess this should go via the net-next tree, right? If so, the net-next tree is currently closed for the merge window, @Kumar, if Conor agrees, please repost this patch after May 26th. Thanks, Paolo
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.
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. That said, Udit, since you are touching this, please update in the next revision: Copyright: (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments, Inc. to Copyright (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://www.ti.com/ [1] https://serenity.dal.design.ti.com/lore/linux-patch-review/20240109231804.3879513-1-nm@ti.com/
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@ti.com/ FWIW, this is some internal-only link.
Thanks all for review On 5/22/2024 7:10 PM, 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. > > That said, Udit, since you are touching this, please update in the next > revision: > Copyright: (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments, Inc. > to > Copyright (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://www.ti.com/ will post v2 with these changes after merge window is open. Along with that in v2 will copy other contributors as well, who are including these files. > [1] https://serenity.dal.design.ti.com/lore/linux-patch-review/20240109231804.3879513-1-nm@ti.com/ >
diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h b/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h index 6fc4b445d3a1..2b7bc9c692f2 100644 --- a/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h +++ b/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR MIT */ /* * Device Tree constants for the Texas Instruments DP83867 PHY * * Author: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com> * - * Copyright: (C) 2015 Texas Instruments, Inc. + * Copyright: (C) 2015-2024 Texas Instruments, Inc. */ #ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_TI_DP83867_H diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83869.h b/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83869.h index 218b1a64e975..fbf5601070dc 100644 --- a/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83869.h +++ b/include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83869.h @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR MIT */ /* * Device Tree constants for the Texas Instruments DP83869 PHY * * Author: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com> * - * Copyright: (C) 2019 Texas Instruments, Inc. + * Copyright: (C) 2019-2024 Texas Instruments, Inc. */ #ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_TI_DP83869_H
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. While at this, update the TI copyright year to sync with current year to indicate license change. Cc: Kip Broadhurst <kbroadhurst@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@ti.com> --- include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83867.h | 4 ++-- include/dt-bindings/net/ti-dp83869.h | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)