From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:30:21 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 08/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-370-xp: Relicense the device tree under GPLv2+/X11 In-Reply-To: <20141216184456.GR11285@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> 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> <20141216144533.GL967@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20141216184456.GR11285@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20141216203021.GS967@titan.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:44:56PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 09:45:33AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, it's rather sad that Simon has said no to this - because the whole > reason for this is to promote sharing these files with other projects > and allowing them to re-use this data. > > > 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 > > I don't think that's on - we really don't want to ask those who have > already transitioned to include X11 to re-think their licensing for > another time. > > > - 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? > > What if another OS (such as BSD) needs to add some additional hardware > description to the DT files (because, for example, we've modelled > something on the Linux implementation, rather than describing the > hardware.) irqchip? > Another OS may not be happy to contribute to something which is GPLv2 > only, in which case you'll get division of the DT. Very good point. > The question is whether you're likely to see 370-xp adopted by other > OS - if yes, then rewriting Simon's commits are the way to go, if not, > then staying as-is is probably best. Well, the favorite hobby of part-time hackers is running mainline kernels on random NASs and Wifi Routers. A lot of which have Marvell SoCs in them... That's how myself and most of the mvebu contributors got into this. > However, there's one issue here which can't be overlooked - what if > some of Simon's work has been copied by someone else into another DT > file, which then gets re-licensed with X11... This is going to need > careful auditing - and careful auditing for ever going forward. It looks as though Arnd is already looking at that. So far, it seems isolated to the Lacie boards. > It would just be a whole lot easier if Simon did give his permission, > but if he really is unwilling to allow his efforts to be re-used else- > where, then we will have to do that work. I'll admit I'm stuck here. I disagree with Simon, but I also think we need to respect his desire as author of the files. I'm not a fan of GPLv2+, but I'm willing to compromise if it means wider adoption of DT. I would hope Simon could come around to the same conclusion from the other side. thx, Jason.