[PATCH 00/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-*: Relicense the device tree under GPLv2+/X11

Jason Cooper
2014-12-30T15:17:57Z

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 01:22:33PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:14:32PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 22 December 2014 12:29:33 Simon Guinot wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:50:00PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 07:16:16PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote:
> > > > > > > Especially none of the dove files have a license.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. I suspect it then falls
> > > > > > under the over-arching license of the project. Regardless, we'll still
> > > > > > need Acks from all contributors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the problem with keeping the LaCie DTS files under GPLv2+ only ?
> > > >
> > > > Converting armada-* to dual license is just a small part of the
> > > > overarching effort to convert *all* the devicetree files to dual
> > > > license. So, eventually, we'll be doing the same with kirkwood, dove
> > > > and orion5x dts{i} files. Perhaps even during this merge window.
> > > >
> > > > In the long term, we're attempting to provide one neutral place [1] for
> > > > the bootloaders and kernels to pull devicetrees from and contribute
> > > > changes back to.
> > >
> > > OK, let's see if I understand correctly.
> > >
> > > If I don't agree with the GPLv2+/x11 relicensing, then support for
> > > almost all the LaCie boards will be removed from the Linux kernel (maybe
> > > during the next merge window) ? Is that correct ?
> >
> > Definitely not during the next merge window. Eventually the plan is
> > to remove *all* dts files from the kernel, but we're a long way
> > away from that.
> >
> > There is already a mirror of the dts files at
> > http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/ianc/device-tree-rebasing.git;a=summary
> > which is hosting files that are meant to be shared with Xen, which is
> > also under the GPL, and supports a lot of the same hardware that Linux
> > supports, but also depends on passing the correct (modified) dtb blobs
> > to the Dom0 kernel.
> >
> > The current setup works ok for Xen, but occasionally there are requests
> > for having the files shared more broadly, e.g. with FreeBSD and with boot
> > loaders that might be non-GPL but are used to boot Linux and that want
> > to ship with a default dtb for a platform they run on.
>
> Minus some details you just provided, that's what I understood in a
> first place.
>
> >
> > > Since all the LaCie boards DTS are at least based on my work (except for
> > > the Orion ED Mini v2), I think there is 12 files concerned here. See the
> > > command output: grep -l lacie *.dts | wc -l.
> > >
> > > The oldest of this boards have been supported by the Linux kernel since
> > > the 2.6.32 release. Also some of this boards are still widely used...
> > >
> > > You know, it is quite a statement you are sending here: The GPLv2+
> > > licences are not good enough to get an ARM-based board supported by
> > > the Linux kernel, while it has always been the case until now. Are all
> > > the maintainers SoC, ARM SoC, ARM and Linux well aligned with that ?
> >
> > I think you just misunderstood.
>
> Jason said:
>
> "Regrettably, we'll have to revert Simon's dts contributions".
>
> This words changed my understanding. Then, you confirm I don't have to
> worry about that ?

Yup. To be clear, this is the part I worded badly. :-/ In my mind, I
was looking at the separate devicetree repo that could be shared
broadly. *Not* the Linux kernel repo.

> > > Is there any way we can keep the LaCie DTS files licenced under GPLv2+
> > > _and_ still distributed with the others. Anyone would be free to choose
> > > to use them (or not), in respect of the licence terms.
> >
> > What I suspect will happen is that we end up with multiple repositories
> > for dts files, e.g. one that contains all files that are GPL-compatible
> > and another one that contains the subset that is licensed under more
> > permissive licenses such as the X11 or some BSD license. I don't see
> > a reason for Linux to stop supporting the former, but it would be nice
> > to have a larger shared subset.
>
> I think it would be indeed a good idea to have a repository with some
> licence separations.
>
> Thanks for the clarifications.

Thanks for sticking with a difficult conversation. Let me know what you
think of the idea I proposed in my other email.

thx,

Jason.