On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:40 PM Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:40 PM: > > Li Yang wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:10 PM: > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:35 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:18:02AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote: > > > > > 2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files > > > > > to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these > > > > > files in our dts/dtsi files? > > > > > > > > You are going to have to deal with the legal departments of the > > > > companies that own those copyrights. Again, talk to your legal > > > > department about how that would even work, or if they even wish for you > > > > to be asking people and companies to do that. > > > > > > Right, we should work with the author/contributor of these two files. > > > > > > Hi Stephen and Geert, > > > > > > Are you ok with relicensing these two files with (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)? > > > Given that many dts files in arm/arm64 are dual licensed with GPL and > > > MIT/X11/BSD, it makes more sense that these header files are dual > > > licensed with a permissive license too. > > > > FWIW, I have filed an internal bug to our IP audit team to see what they > > think. I cannot predict the answer or timeline for an answer. > > It turns out I got a very quick answer from our legal department. The > joy of filing a bug right before their scheduled meeting! We're fine > either: > > a) Sending the files direct to you with an MIT license (we'd send a copy > of the last version only touched by me, un less Geert also ack's the > license change). > > b) Sending a patch to convert these files to just MIT (preferable), or > perhaps dual GPLv2/MIT if that's what the kernel maintainers want. I think b) is better as it can also benefit others who also use dual license in dts files. > > Let me know which option works best for you. > > That said, have you thought about all the other files you'll likely > need; those two IRQ related files are unlikely to be the only files that > are useful. Don't you want/need to relicense "everything" in include/dt/ > and arch/*/boot/dts/? There are only a few header files in include/dt-bindings/ suppose to be generic. The irq related ones are the only files we used. Maybe it will be helpful to have the generic headers dual licensed too. But I think the license used for the arch/*/boot/dts/ files should be decided by the hardware vendor/copyright holders themselves. Regards, Leo
