From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:51:16 +0200 Subject: Formal license ambiguity in arch/arm/boot/dts/sun?i-a*.dts In-Reply-To: <5405B986.2080407@redhat.com> References: <20140731192016.GA6869@excalibur.cnev.de> <20140803130430.GY3952@lukather> <201408031959.27607.arnd@arndb.de> <20140804192510.GF3952@lukather> <20140804212317.GL30282@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140807132023.GG15297@lukather> <20140902102206.GU15297@lukather> <20140902104002.GN30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140902122716.GV15297@lukather> <5405B986.2080407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20140902125116.GW15297@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: