On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 8:48 AM Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 15:03-20241108, Roger Quadros wrote: > > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti/ti,mux-clock.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti/ti,mux-clock.yaml > > >>> new file mode 100644 > > >>> index 000000000000..b271ab86dde1 > > >>> --- /dev/null > > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti/ti,mux-clock.yaml > > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ > > >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > >> > > >> Surely TI as the only author of the original binding would agree to > > >> dual-license this? > > >> > > > So there is a question mark. So you are waiting for some confirmation > > > form TI? > > > > TI code uses below license clause. So better to stick to that. > > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > Just my 2 cents: > > Just to be clear, as a corporate, as TI contributor we have approval for the > following two: > > For new stuff: GPL-2.0-only OR MIT > for legacy stuff, we had GPL-2.0-only. New kernel drivers would be GPL-2.0-only... And based on this, TI can't contribute any new bindings. > > There are indeed instances of community contributions with > GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause, but that is definitely something community > is free to do. Looking at history of > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti/mux.txt, I believe, at least > from TI perspective, we are fine with GPL-2.0-only OR MIT and I think it > will let other s/w ecosystems consume the same as well. The choice for bindings are: GPL-2.0-only GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause MIT would be fine, but I just don't want proliferation of different variations. See the .dts licenses for an example of that. For this case, I would suggest going with GPL-2.0-only. It would be nice to have blanket permission from TI to dual license any DT bindings. I have this from several companies. It really only matters for common bindings that we want to move out of the kernel though. Rob
