Re: Formal license ambiguity in arch/arm/boot/dts/sun?i-a*.dts

[Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1459 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:42:19PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09/02/2014 02:51 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 02:35:18PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> IANAL, but mixing MIT (which I suggest use as the other license) and GPL
> >> files in one binary (the generated dtb file) is fine AFAIK, this happens
> >> all the time. The resulting binary is simple GPL licensed. So it would
> >> make sense to start with dual licensing new boards right away even before
> >> the dtsi has been relicensed. It won't make any practical difference
> >> until the dtsi is relicensed, but it means less work later on.
> > 
> > So you're allowed to licence derivative work of a GPL-licenced file
> > under both the GPL and another licence?
> 
> Since the board files do not start as copies of the dtsi file, but
> merely include it they are not derivative (IANAL), the resulting
> dtb file however very much is and as such is GPL only.

My understanding was that inclusion does qualify as a derivative
work. Otherwise we wouldn't need either the LGPL or the GCC licence
exception.

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]