From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: kaloz@openwrt.org (Imre Kaloz)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:10:00 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 00/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-*: Relicense the device tree
 under GPLv2+/X11
In-Reply-To: <20141215160752.GE967@titan.lakedaemon.net>
References: <1418657915-22775-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
 <20141215160752.GE967@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Message-ID: <op.xqxbiybe2s3iss@ecaz>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:07:52 -0800, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> wrote:

<snip>

> I like the X11 license, much more liberal than the BSD I had been
> thinking of.
>
> What were the reasons for changing GPLv2 -> GPLv2+?  Why not preserve
> the author's intent re GPL and do:
>
> 	GPLv2  -> GPLv2/X11
> 	GPLv2+ -> GPLv2+/X11
>
> Please note: I have no interest is a flame war re GPLv2/GPLv3.  No ones
> minds are going to be changed at this point.  I'm simply looking to stay
> closer to the author's intentions and extend the usefulness of the DT
> tree.

Why not simply ISC it? Wouldn't it be better than dual-licensing?


Imre