Re: [net-next PATCH v3 05/11] net: pcs: lynx: Convert to an MDIO driver

Vladimir Oltean
2025-05-07T15:04:46Z

On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 06:39:43PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 5/6/25 18:29, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 06:20:32PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >> On 5/6/25 18:18, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 06:03:35PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >> >> On 5/6/25 17:58, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >> >> > Hello Sean,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 03:33:17PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-lynx.c b/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-lynx.c
> >> >> >> index 23b40e9eacbb..bacba1dd52e2 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-lynx.c
> >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-lynx.c
> >> >> >> @@ -1,11 +1,15 @@
> >> >> >> -// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause)
> >> >> >> -/* Copyright 2020 NXP
> >> >> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> >> >> >> +/* Copyright (C) 2022 Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> + * Copyright 2020 NXP
> >> >> >> * Lynx PCS MDIO helpers
> >> >> >> */
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -MODULE_DESCRIPTION("NXP Lynx PCS phylink library");
> >> >> >> -MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
> >> >> >> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("NXP Lynx PCS phylink driver");
> >> >> >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What's the idea with the license change for this code?
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to license my contributions under the GPL in order to
> >> >> ensure that they remain free software.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Sean
> >> >
> >> > But in the process, you are relicensing code which is not yours.
> >> > Do you have agreement from the copyright owners of this file that the
> >> > license can be changed?
> >>
> >> I'm not relicensing anything. It's already (GPL OR BSD-3-Clause). I'm
> >> just choosing not to license my contributions under BSD-3-Clause.
> >>
> >> --Sean
> >
> > You will need to explain that better, because what I see is that the
> > "BSD-3-Clause" portion of the license has disappeared and that applies
> > file-wide, not just to your contribution.
>
> But I also have the option to just use the GPL-2.0+ license. When you
> have an SPDX like (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause) that means the authors gave
> permission to relicense it as
>
> - BSD-3-Clause
> - GPL-2.0+
> - GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause
> - GPL-2.0
> - GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause
> - GPL-3.0
> - GPL-3.0 OR BSD-3-Clause
> - GPL-4.0 (if it ever happens)
>
> I want my contributions to remain free software, so I don't want to
> allow someone to take the BSD-3-Clause option (without the GPL).
>
> --Sean

Bottom line, I've checked and I don't think any of our planned future
contributions to this driver is going to be impacted by the removal of
the dual license option, thanks for asking.