Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932882Ab0FUR2f (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:28:35 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:35216 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757714Ab0FUR2d (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:28:33 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6020"; a="45072868" Message-ID: <4C1FA141.30006@codeaurora.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:28:33 -0700 From: Bryan Huntsman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: Pavel Machek , Gregory Bean , dwalker@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] msm: Add gpio register address mapping information. References: <1276888375-13221-1-git-send-email-gbean@codeaurora.org> <1276888375-13221-2-git-send-email-gbean@codeaurora.org> <20100619200249.GA2507@elf.ucw.cz> <4C1F9B58.6020302@codeaurora.org> <20100621181851.53de5f62@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100621181851.53de5f62@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1448 Lines: 35 Alan Cox wrote: >>> Yeah. Either this can be replaced with GPL, and it such case just do >>> so, or it can not, and then it can not be applied to kernel. >>> >> This is a standard BSD-style license so it's compatible w/ the GPL. Thanks. > > The kernel requires GPL, and its much much easier for everyone to state > so explicitly to avoid future surprises (remember 4 clause BSD was once > thought GPL compatible even by the FSF...) > > If you want to make it clear it's also available BSD licensed in this > form (at least until someone changes it) see the wording in files like > drivers/char/random.c > > That usually keeps all the lawyers happy. > > Alan Keeping the lawyers happy certainly has it's challenges. Is it uncommon to use just a BSD-style license for headers? I understand that everyone would prefer just GPL. I'm primarily curious about preserving BSD licensing for headers under /include. A dual license would work, but would it also be frowned upon to use just a 3-clause BSD license like we have in this patch? Thanks. - Bryan -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/