On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 08:25:21PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > 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. > > Yes. The MIT licence most definitely exists, and people know what it > means. > > Also nobody should be changing the licence on anything unless they have > the written permission of all rights holders on record, so it's best to > leave it be 8) >
I knew from the beginning anything related to license will be fun. :-) In this particular case, I don't think I need to get confirmation from all rights holder because they've agreed to the licenses listed in the comment. I'm merely fixing a bug in code. I understand people have different opinion on how this should be interpreted. And I'm not a lawyer. Let's just leave it be now and divert our energy to more useful things in life. Wei. > Alan
