Hi Chris,
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:20 PM Chris Brandt <Chris.Brandt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday, November 30, 2018, Simon Horman wrote:
> > I am wondering about the motivation for dual-licensing this file.
> > It does not seem to be something Renesas has done before with
> > upstream DT.
> >
> > I am also wondering if the dual licence, if it remains, can be
> > described using SPDX.
>
> A while back, I was reading/hearing about how board DT file do not have
> to be GPL and the user should not have to be forced to make this GPL.
> (Maybe at some ELC conference or on LWN or something)
Indeed. Recently there have been some attempts to fix this.
> So in our RZ/A BSP that I release to customers I would use this dual
> license. You can see the exact same license in a number of dts files in
> mainline.
Note that your file includes
#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
#include <dt-bindings/pinctrl/r7s9210-pinctrl.h>
both of which are
include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/r7s9210-pinctrl.h:/*
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> Since there is no SPDX for this, I figure Rob might have some opinion on
> the matter.
> And, if I have to make it GLP for the mainline version, then I will just
> replace the license when I release the customer BSP (since I wrote it,
> I can do that). But, I would be nice to keep the BSP version as close to
> mainline as I can.
Documentation/process/license-rules.rst does have SPDX identifiers for
dual-licensed files. Perhaps they match the license of your file?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
