Dne 12.4.2017 v 16:57 Takashi Iwai napsal(a): > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:50:57 +0200, > Liam Girdwood wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 16:54 +0800, fuweix.tang@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Fuwei Tang <fuweix.tang@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Add the intel UCM configs to a dedicated UCM conf repo and release them using >>> the BSD license. >> >> We are still missing the LICENSE/COPYING file. We need to add it the top >> directory level so it's clear to users. >> >>> The other non intel UCM files can be moved over when there is agreement with the >>> file authors, but in the mean time they will stay in alsa-lib. >>> The configs are moved from alsa-lib repo. The original authorship and commit >>> message of all config files will be reserved. >>> >> >> Takashi, how do you want to manage the move ? We could add the files to >> the new repo first and then only delete them in alsa-lib after the next >> alsa-lib release ? This would give time for distros to pick up the new >> conf package. I'm easy on whatever works best here. > > We really need a consensus before dealing with such patches. > It's just a copy / move of some files to another repo, so a patch is > just a waste of bandwidth. > > If the only question is about the license, why can't we put another > license to UCM profiles in the repo, while keeping LGPL for others as > is? You can declare it in README or maybe better in another text file > to explaining about the licenses in the repository. > > I'm asking it because, possibly, UCM syntax may be extended in future, > and then there is mismatch with UCM profile and parser. By providing > in a single repo, at least, we can avoid the mismatch in the source > level. > > Other than that, I myself have no objection to factor out to another > repo. But, as previously mentioned, it's rather a request to > Jaroslav, who maintains the repositories in alsa-project.org. I'm ready to do anything we settle. There's another option - keep ucm config files in alsa-lib and publish/mirror them also in the separate repository (assuming that there are other frameworks which may use them - like on android). And I agree with the point that the UCM files may have different licence than other files in alsa-lib, because they are not a direct part of the executable binary. Jaroslav -- Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxxx> Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
