On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:42:19PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/02/2014 02:51 PM, 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? > > Since the board files do not start as copies of the dtsi file, but > merely include it they are not derivative (IANAL), the resulting > dtb file however very much is and as such is GPL only. My understanding was that inclusion does qualify as a derivative work. Otherwise we wouldn't need either the LGPL or the GCC licence exception. -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
