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. It's also in https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT , the fact that it might be confused for other licenses used by MIT notwithstanding. FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License seems to think that the wording most commonly called the "MIT License" might be the "Expat license", rather than the "X11 License" which is similar but different. Ian.
