From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen-netback: fix license ident used in MODULE_LICENSE Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:34:46 +0000 Message-ID: <56A23E06.50403@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> <1453472147.4320.92.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Xen-devel , "open list:XEN NETWORK BACKEND DRIVER" , open list , Boris Ostrovsky To: Ian Campbell , Wei Liu Return-path: Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:31506 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753608AbcAVOfZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:35:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1453472147.4320.92.camel@citrix.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 22/01/16 14:15, Ian Campbell wrote: > 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. "Dual MIT/GPL" is used exactly once in the source in a file that has no license text and there is no other documentation. David