On Sunday 09 November 2014 21:17:37 Scott Branden wrote: > On 14-11-09 12:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sunday 09 November 2014 09:23:11 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 10:49:09PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > >>>>>> +/* > >>>>>> + * Copyright 2014 Broadcom Corporation. All rights reserved. > >>>>>> + * > >>>>>> + * Unless you and Broadcom execute a separate written software license > >>>>>> + * agreement governing use of this software, this software is licensed > >>>>>> to you > >>>>>> + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > >>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation version 2. > >>>>>> + * > >>>>>> + * This program is distributed "as is" WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY of any > >>>>>> + * kind, whether express or implied; without even the implied warranty > >>>>>> + * of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > >>>>>> + * GNU General Public License for more details. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We ask for new DT contents to be added with dual BSD/GPL license, to > >>>>> allow for reuse of the DT data structures in other projects as well. > >>>>> There's currently a lot of activity going on relicensing the current > >>>>> files so I recommend sorting it out before they are added if you can. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> This may take more time than you think. I am going to have to go through > >>>> legal to get such a license created. Also, why would you need dual license? > >>>> If it is BSD that should serve both purposes? > >>> > >>> I haven't followed the discussion close enough to know if there's been > >>> discussion about single-license BSD vs dual BSD/GPL. > > > > I think for all practical purposes, BSD and dual BSD/GPL is the same and > > listing it as dual was meant as a clarification to make it easier to see > > that all files in the kernel are GPLv2 compatible. > A dual BSD/GPL may involve having me get a lawyer to create such a > header. I would prefer to leave it as GPL for now until some concrete > decision has finally been made on this by the rest of the community? > Or, I can put it as BSD right now if that helps? I would prefer a pure BSD header for the moment over a pure GPL header. The last thing we want is to force other operating systems to create another set of dts files for the same hardware. 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
