On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:40:02AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:22:06PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:20:23PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 10:23:17PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:25:10PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 07:59:27PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > I would actually prefer if we could migrate a lot of these files to BSD license, > > > > > > provided the original authors agree. We want the dtb blobs to be embeddable into > > > > > > boot loaders of any license. > > > > > > > > > > Even though I'd be open to having my contributions to DTBs under the > > > > > BSD, is this really a thing? > > > > > > > > > > I mean, for all I know, an OS/Bootloader would just parse a documented > > > > > binary file, and I don't see any derivative work there. > > > > > > > > How does the OS/Bootloader end up with that binary file? > > > > > > > > For the sake of argument, let's say that the BSDs want to move to DT on > > > > ARM. Great, they convert over to parsing our DT blobs. > > > > > > > > However, they can't distribute the binary DT blobs to their users without > > > > coming up against the problems of the GPL wrt binary distribution. > > > > > > > > They could distribute the source files, but remember that many of those > > > > are currently GPL licensed, so they'd probably end up having to package > > > > them entirely separately, if they're willing to do that at all. > > > > > > > > Or they could decide to ignore us altogether, and do their own DT stuff, > > > > maybe partially implementing our properties, or maybe coming up with > > > > different and/or incompatible properties - which would be bad because > > > > we now end up with two ways to describe the same hardware in active use. > > > > > > > > I suspect the final option is the one they'd choose, and it's in our > > > > interest that _that_ doesn't happen. > > > > > > Ah, yes, it's not really about a fear of a GPL-spread, but rather a > > > concern about the source distribution. Makes sense. > > > > > > How should we deal with such relicensing? > > > > Ping? > > > > Are we doing this on a per platform basis? Should we enforce this dual > > licensing for the future DTS patches? If so, starting from when? > > I have no answers to your questions - I put the question a number of > times to Grant directly, and have been totally ignored. > > So, I think we just do whatever we think is the correct approach. > > Remember, when you change the licensing on something which has had > multiple contributors, you need to seek the permission from everyone > how contributed to it - so it will have to be done on a per platform > and per-SoC basis. Ack. > I would also strongly suggest that future DTS files should be dual > licensed from the start, and that we require contributions for the > DTS files to be under both licenses. So I guess like Chen-Yu suggested that we should change the license of the DTSI first, and then the DTS. Otherwise, it wouldn't work very well, I guess you can't really relicense a GPL-only file. Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
