On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:51:16 Maxime Ripard wrote: > 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? libfdt uses BSD license, which would be a reason to use the same for the dts files. Other than that, I don't think it matters either way. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
