From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: Formal license ambiguity in arch/arm/boot/dts/sun?i-a*.dts Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:27:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20140902122716.GV15297@lukather> References: <20140731192016.GA6869@excalibur.cnev.de> <20140803130430.GY3952@lukather> <201408031959.27607.arnd@arndb.de> <20140804192510.GF3952@lukather> <20140804212317.GL30282@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140807132023.GG15297@lukather> <20140902102206.GU15297@lukather> <20140902104002.GN30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Lioif/rgIS+iIQ0s" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140902104002.GN30401-l+eeeJia6m9vn6HldHNs0ANdhmdF6hFW@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, khilman-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Arnd Bergmann , Hans de Goede , Karsten Merker , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --Lioif/rgIS+iIQ0s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:40:02AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:22:06PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:20:23PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > Hi Russell, > > >=20 > > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 10:23:17PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wr= ote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:25:10PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 07:59:27PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > I would actually prefer if we could migrate a lot of these file= s to BSD license, > > > > > > provided the original authors agree. We want the dtb blobs to b= e embeddable into > > > > > > boot loaders of any license. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Even though I'd be open to having my contributions to DTBs under = the > > > > > BSD, is this really a thing? > > > > >=20 > > > > > I mean, for all I know, an OS/Bootloader would just parse a docum= ented > > > > > binary file, and I don't see any derivative work there. > > > >=20 > > > > How does the OS/Bootloader end up with that binary file? > > > >=20 > > > > For the sake of argument, let's say that the BSDs want to move to D= T on > > > > ARM. Great, they convert over to parsing our DT blobs. > > > >=20 > > > > However, they can't distribute the binary DT blobs to their users w= ithout > > > > coming up against the problems of the GPL wrt binary distribution. > > > >=20 > > > > They could distribute the source files, but remember that many of t= hose > > > > are currently GPL licensed, so they'd probably end up having to pac= kage > > > > them entirely separately, if they're willing to do that at all. > > > >=20 > > > > Or they could decide to ignore us altogether, and do their own DT s= tuff, > > > > maybe partially implementing our properties, or maybe coming up with > > > > different and/or incompatible properties - which would be bad becau= se > > > > we now end up with two ways to describe the same hardware in active= use. > > > >=20 > > > > I suspect the final option is the one they'd choose, and it's in our > > > > interest that _that_ doesn't happen. > > >=20 > > > Ah, yes, it's not really about a fear of a GPL-spread, but rather a > > > concern about the source distribution. Makes sense. > > >=20 > > > How should we deal with such relicensing? > >=20 > > Ping? > >=20 > > Are we doing this on a per platform basis? Should we enforce this dual > > licensing for the future DTS patches? If so, starting from when? >=20 > I have no answers to your questions - I put the question a number of > times to Grant directly, and have been totally ignored. >=20 > So, I think we just do whatever we think is the correct approach. >=20 > Remember, when you change the licensing on something which has had > multiple contributors, you need to seek the permission from everyone > how contributed to it - so it will have to be done on a per platform > and per-SoC basis. Ack. > I would also strongly suggest that future DTS files should be dual > licensed from the start, and that we require contributions for the > DTS files to be under both licenses. So I guess like Chen-Yu suggested that we should change the license of the DTSI first, and then the DTS. Otherwise, it wouldn't work very well, I guess you can't really relicense a GPL-only file. Thanks! Maxime --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --Lioif/rgIS+iIQ0s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUBbekAAoJEBx+YmzsjxAgnKUP/3YcA/at0KcrAwmeKsDkAxsM IekyFkIOK86RgQ4wxJNPmVlpsbaf2cHSoe0Nginw9sS/99aVQ/LihbRVPJoWerQp ql2CesMQi6RSb9g1sxCfXJ5CEZw2xEZYlH8XptOmMqOUrdCEA2MGTUmzqOg3h0pg tiIuWzyG6+TehAsBQB/ZMcxj+rsQ+NQtnNasMeltrCOZc2jrUcABelouSiVFjsRT Og+/N35eu+UV8IqIT5gaDVGWZW1bi173Htn3Vrnb94Or2Sb6OlcFme4QXthG2sgq XoJFuvijXDBCpzTtNd74a/SKK8aDlH+ejP1REHYuW4hQK60BbPPRdtViL+ZQCj/D oBWUNZ0xdW/R9Igjoh+8w1FQrDODgFsn7SE1oLMkbKFqRRHMSwY3+VTX9NHoZyXD CVWHgmt/deL/BSjmTTO8Vdwp1ajNUAHgTwqW3lqRdqqcs7uLdDbBHlpEEFRGOocq D1fvCgsRTO4SGHuE6m2EilZ6iW9nTfLOFL+AYPmxUJNykcjVnTJk7ODgREXFZh13 Tl0F6etfLqrE2x5dSWjuVdVTyMJlmLEESIJI/bay3oUyOq8QFNrNJIsbvWKcJpuG +cHYwq41eHsXMjazFkM/z7ZSAqD9pLiztfvHhgqQi7wuXCg47oi7Suy35KiWj5QN iGzzcOR5ypDHqnJrVBBx =WhX9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Lioif/rgIS+iIQ0s-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html