On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 02:35:18PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > 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. > > IANAL, but mixing MIT (which I suggest use as the other license) and GPL > files in one binary (the generated dtb file) is fine AFAIK, this happens > all the time. The resulting binary is simple GPL licensed. So it would > make sense to start with dual licensing new boards right away even before > the dtsi has been relicensed. It won't make any practical difference > until the dtsi is relicensed, but it means less work later on. So you're allowed to licence derivative work of a GPL-licenced file under both the GPL and another licence? And as far as MIT vs BSD is concerned, I don't really have an opinion. Arnd? Russell? -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
