From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle McMartin Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] README: clarify redistribution requirements covering patents Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:22:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20150519212225.GD5093@merlin.infradead.org> References: <1431626160-10885-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <5554E99A.5030302@broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Arend van Spriel , Kyle McMartin , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , linux-wireless , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , One Thousand Gnomes To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:18:14PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> Your commit should include an update to the WHENCE file clearly > >> identifying the licence under which the firmware is available, and > >> -that it is redistributable. If the licence is long and involved, it's > >> +that it is redistributable. Being redistributable includes ensuring > >> +the firmware license provided includes an implicit or explicit > >> +patent grant to end users to ensure full functionality of device > >> +operation with the firmware. If the licence is long and involved, it's > > > > > > Just nitpicking here, but there is 'license' and 'licence' being used here. > > Better stick to one and preferably 'license'. > > Fixed, will submit a v2. > Heh, it doesn't help that we now have LICENSE.* and LICENCE.* in the tree as well. :/ I believe, at least in my Commonwealth english, that licence is the file, and license is the action of licensing. I should probably rename the LICENSE.* files in the tree to match. --Kyle