Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:41:18 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Cc:     =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <zajec5@gmail.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] brcmsmac: switch source files to using SPDX license
 identifier
Message-ID: <20190708104118.GA10261@kroah.com>
References: <1558008251-13692-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
 <1558008251-13692-4-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
 <20190516173113.GA540@kroah.com>
 <a5d32b2f-a99b-a248-1acd-9de532732e30@broadcom.com>
 <20190516200131.GA15814@kroah.com>
 <eeebea29-4237-6e49-7578-8d3b1ad7df85@broadcom.com>
 <CACna6rxuSFWN8eib7FpJiVQqLwdD5GOTaAFr7msJa01rBSTLKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <34aa04e4-9ddd-b6aa-721f-a20398f7740d@broadcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <34aa04e4-9ddd-b6aa-721f-a20398f7740d@broadcom.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 12:07:43PM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> + Alan
> 
> On 5/17/2019 8:07 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > > > > Another option could be MIT license which is in the preferred folder.
> > > > > Will have to consult our legal department about it though.
> > > > Hey, if your legal department is going to get asked this, why not just
> > > > switch it to GPLv2?  That would make everything much simpler.
> > > Hah. Because I already know the answer to that.;-)
> > It's not that obvious to me, sorry. Does your legal department require
> > something more permissive than GPLv2? Is that worth asking them about
> > dual-licensing? Something like
> > GPL-2.0 OR MIT
> > ? That assures driver is compatible with Linux, no matter what's the
> > current lawyers interpretation of MIT vs. GPL 2.0. I believe Alan Cox
> > once told/suggested that dual-licensing is safer for legal reasons.
> 
> Hi Alan,
> 
> Rafał mentioned your name a while ago when I was struggling with the SPDX
> identifiers. The drivers sources I want to modify for this originally had a
> license text in the header that matches ISC. However,
> one of the files did not have that and it was marked in bulk to GPLv2. So
> now the question is whether I can change it to ISC like the rest or should I
> make it dual like Rafał suggested.
> 
> Can you elaborate the pros and cons of dual license?

You need to talk to your lawyers about that.  Please ask this of them.

thanks,

greg k-h