Hi Arend,
On 10-10-18 09:52, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 10/10/2018 9:28 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
So how do you want to proceed with this, do you want me to just
put the full ISC text in the header for now as the rest of brcmfmac
does?
This is not entirely true as far as I know. I assume you are referring to this:
/*
* Copyright (c) 2010 Broadcom Corporation
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
* MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY
* SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
* OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
* CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/
As far as I recall we opted for BSD license and ISC is equivalent.
I believe it is the other way around, you opted for the ISC license
which is more or less equivalent to the 2 clause BSD, see:
https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html
https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC
The ISC text is a 1:1 match to the license used in brcmfmac, and it seems
sensible to me to be consistent and use the same license for all
brcmfmac files even if the 2 are more or less equivalent.
However, The BSD license are already in place so why not use that. I would say
BSD-2-Clause should cover it. As this is a new file I guess it is up to you
although I would prefer to stick with a permissive license.
I've no problem with a permissive license, I will just stick with
the ISC / same header as the rest of brcmfmac for consistency.
Regards,
Hans
p.s.
Any chance you could do a patch-review of this series?
