Re: [PATCH 3/7] brcmsmac: switch source files to using SPDX license identifier

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

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