From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:45:33 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 08/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-370-xp: Relicense the device tree under GPLv2+/X11 In-Reply-To: <20141216133719.GE19261@kw.sim.vm.gnt> References: <1418657915-22775-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <1418657915-22775-9-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20141215232221.GD19261@kw.sim.vm.gnt> <20141216130331.GJ967@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20141216133719.GE19261@kw.sim.vm.gnt> Message-ID: <20141216144533.GL967@titan.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:37:19PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 08:03:31AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > Simon, > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:22:21AM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 04:38:16PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > > The current GPL only licensing on the device tree makes it very > > > > impractical for other software components licensed under another > > > > license. > > > > > > > > In order to make it easier for them to reuse our device trees, > > > > relicense our device trees under a GPL/X11 dual-license. > > > > > > > > Cc: Andrew Lunn > > > > Cc: Arnaud Ebalard > > > > Cc: Ezequiel Garcia > > > > Cc: Greg Ungerer > > > > Cc: Heikki Krogerus > > > > Cc: Jason Cooper > > > > Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi > > > > Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu > > > > Cc: Simon Baatz > > > > Cc: Simon Guinot > > > > Cc: Thomas Petazzoni > > > > Cc: Willy Tarreau > > > > Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > Hi Gregory, > > > > > > NAK for me. > > > > Well, I'm a bit surprised that this is the first one. :) Care to > > explain why so that we can work towards an amenable compromise? > > Hi Jason, > > I am also a bit surprised to be the only one :) > > As I have no interest in a flame war either, I am not gonna elaborate > on this. But in a few words, I don't think that allowing a permissive > licence alternative is good for software sharing (which is important > to me). Ok, fair enough. I just needed to know if the NAK was against the GPLv2+ part or the X11 part. Clearly, it's the X11 part. So let's look at what we have (trying to stick to facts): - alienating contributors in bad (yes, this is first) - sometimes the community has to do something a minority disagrees with, but it should be avoided, if at all possible. - devicetree is so useful, other projects are adopting it - if our binding docs are good, rewriting dts{i} isn't hard. - rewriting dts{i} can lead to fragmentation - maintaining two devicetree trees would be a pia (X11, GPLonly) - reverting/rewriting GPLonly commits is possible, but see first bullet. - Simon may not be the only contributor who disagrees with X11. - of the known consumers of dts{i}, *BSD is the only one with licensing issues. So our goal is to avoid fragmentation by allowing *BSD to use our dts{i} files as is. Our secondary goal is to avoid a maintenance headache. Options: - Ask Simon to find an OSI-compatible license to replace X11 that: - *BSD can use - meets the intent of himself and other like-minded authors - Leave licensing as is, but make a statement that *using* the dts doesn't create a derivative work under the GPL (similar to Linus' statement re the Linux kernel, Wolfgang and U-Boot, etc). - Screw it, plow forward, and revert/rewrite GPLonly commits - Ignore the whole issue and hope it goes away. Personally, I'm in favor of the second one, and think it has the highest chance of success. After all, ARM-based *BSD is launched from a GPL bootloader in most cases, right (U-Boot, barebox)? Thoughts? thx, Jason.