From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754034AbcAVOP5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:15:57 -0500 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:51444 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753594AbcAVOPt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:15:49 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,331,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="327056599" Message-ID: <1453472147.4320.92.camel@citrix.com> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen-netback: fix license ident used in MODULE_LICENSE From: Ian Campbell To: Wei Liu , David Vrabel CC: Xen-devel , "open list:XEN NETWORK BACKEND DRIVER" , open list , Boris Ostrovsky Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:15:47 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20160122134943.GB1691@citrix.com> References: <1453466057-7176-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <1453466057-7176-2-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <56A22B30.3020206@citrix.com> <20160122134943.GB1691@citrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.2-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-DLP: MIA2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.