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 17:18:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20140902151808.GY15297@lukather> References: <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> <20140902122716.GV15297@lukather> <5405B986.2080407@redhat.com> <20140902125116.GW15297@lukather> <5405D74B.8090409@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZoVy78VzjVQLn2aH" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5405D74B.8090409-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Hans de Goede Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Arnd Bergmann , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, khilman-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Karsten Merker , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --ZoVy78VzjVQLn2aH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:42:19PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, >=20 > 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 G= PL > >> files in one binary (the generated dtb file) is fine AFAIK, this happe= ns > >> 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 bef= ore > >> the dtsi has been relicensed. It won't make any practical difference > >> until the dtsi is relicensed, but it means less work later on. > >=20 > > So you're allowed to licence derivative work of a GPL-licenced file > > under both the GPL and another licence? >=20 > 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. --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --ZoVy78VzjVQLn2aH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUBd+wAAoJEBx+YmzsjxAgAkgQAIoBIS2BUljaeUrm7xld3/Zx D9kbuVzYMJMN9Uzq7TIdR20kainmCVDM0jiDtDwuICIjO3iRL+XnF7sidhs8ruPP fGPR/Ye4c+1tWQlboFAMw3isS5BWu3rEI2QHs7YwVIvAhZP2en5ux1Ltb8ofzvW0 XkrQW9gMmekdx6nLPcYxv04wXA6S/x7Jct0+gwAU+wPixTGe14pp+fmZ1ob7Wevq sgSw6ccrij6ya4G6RQ9jA9Sz4ExKn34L5SJgd6agcipUqCqjYi2znoURH8J8funY NK/m05UtJDLcf5ZwQ92eS1VBKEbhaJLnxuVYXnhzUjqA6sf7bk7lAcUhv1sfogRC vrh6lkwdTWvJjkZWWNn0GvLc0vzY9QLDssTP5d6X513AMHqzxWDtaipSnBCsmpv3 qFVI8ezHXdS5iUxo9J7sH/7+vDI2OhnJoWnlnl85Nur2BiTtlFhmsSBZqnZCUTH9 1BmRg97e1Gom7S05XME5OhznssNrwSkI7gWevBiuY4uWuSPR5RmGPtLdfJK+12MN u5or8jWUsLWAA0BvjJekWS3dy6FUiOp1AVWj3e0lWTXm5x3sL2sAY4Q5B5oU1ZSp ksstgM7k8PiUVVQgLrzV3iH4gADVmj5PNgOgWKn9ZX88M5hXU+mv+N1PzcfLwAKl 0TXldwnE+ZwvAUjn1Ey5 =9Ys0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZoVy78VzjVQLn2aH-- -- 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