[PATCH 08/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-370-xp: Relicense the device tree under GPLv2+/X11

Jason Cooper
2014-12-16T20:30:21Z

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? </me ducks>

> 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.