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
