License for ARM device tree file

License for ARM device tree file

[Li Leo]

Hi All,

I saw some discussion going on last year about the permissive license to be used in ARM device tree files.  I know a lot of files have been changed to use GPLv2/X11 license.  But may I know if GPLv2/BSD 3-clause dual license is still a valid license to use in ARM device tree files.  It has been our standard permissive license used for a long time in many components like device trees in Power architecture.

Regards,
Leo
--
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

Re: License for ARM device tree file

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 07:14:30PM +0000, Li Leo wrote:
> I saw some discussion going on last year about the permissive license
> to be used in ARM device tree files.  I know a lot of files have been
> changed to use GPLv2/X11 license.  But may I know if GPLv2/BSD 3-clause
> dual license is still a valid license to use in ARM device tree files.
> It has been our standard permissive license used for a long time in
> many components like device trees in Power architecture.

It would have been nice to have had some input at the time that what
little discussion there was happened.

I'm sorry, but at this point I'm of the opinion that the window for
discussing what license we switch to has been had, and the matter is
settled; those who didn't take part in the discussion have themselves
to blame if they don't like the outcome.

What I'm saying is that I doubt anyone has the stomach to go through
another set of license changes on the existing files to suit some
late-commer to the party.

However, we can't dictate to people what license they wish to submit
their work under; though, we can make the decision whether to accept
it under the license terms or not.

I think the problem will come if we try to mix a file that's licensed
one way, which includes files licensed under a different set of
licenses... if you want to use a file licensed under BSD 3-clause but
don't want to agree to the GPL license (so you're only bound by the
BSD 3-clause license) and that file includes some GPL/X11 licensed
files, then what?

IANAL.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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

Re: License for ARM device tree file

[Li Yang]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 07:14:30PM +0000, Li Leo wrote:
>> I saw some discussion going on last year about the permissive license
>> to be used in ARM device tree files.  I know a lot of files have been
>> changed to use GPLv2/X11 license.  But may I know if GPLv2/BSD 3-clause
>> dual license is still a valid license to use in ARM device tree files.
>> It has been our standard permissive license used for a long time in
>> many components like device trees in Power architecture.
>
> It would have been nice to have had some input at the time that what
> little discussion there was happened.
>
> I'm sorry, but at this point I'm of the opinion that the window for
> discussing what license we switch to has been had, and the matter is
> settled; those who didn't take part in the discussion have themselves
> to blame if they don't like the outcome.
>
> What I'm saying is that I doubt anyone has the stomach to go through
> another set of license changes on the existing files to suit some
> late-commer to the party.
>

Right.  I'm not proposing to change all the device trees into another
license.  GPL/X11 is actually a good license to use.

> However, we can't dictate to people what license they wish to submit
> their work under; though, we can make the decision whether to accept
> it under the license terms or not.

But I'm wondering if we submit a device tree patch using other GPL
compatible permissive license(like GPL/3-clause-BSD dual license)
which doesn't include any other device tree files, will it still be
acceptable or not?

>
> I think the problem will come if we try to mix a file that's licensed
> one way, which includes files licensed under a different set of
> licenses... if you want to use a file licensed under BSD 3-clause but
> don't want to agree to the GPL license (so you're only bound by the
> BSD 3-clause license) and that file includes some GPL/X11 licensed
> files, then what?

Permissive licenses like X11 and BSD 3-clause should be compatible
with each other right?

Regards,
Leo
--
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

Re: License for ARM device tree file

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:19:05PM -0500, Li Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > However, we can't dictate to people what license they wish to submit
> > their work under; though, we can make the decision whether to accept
> > it under the license terms or not.
> 
> But I'm wondering if we submit a device tree patch using other GPL
> compatible permissive license(like GPL/3-clause-BSD dual license)
> which doesn't include any other device tree files, will it still be
> acceptable or not?

I don't see why it wouldn't be acceptable.  The only thing that matters
for Linux itself is that it's GPL v2 compatible since the kernel is a
GPL v2 project.

> > I think the problem will come if we try to mix a file that's licensed
> > one way, which includes files licensed under a different set of
> > licenses... if you want to use a file licensed under BSD 3-clause but
> > don't want to agree to the GPL license (so you're only bound by the
> > BSD 3-clause license) and that file includes some GPL/X11 licensed
> > files, then what?
> 
> Permissive licenses like X11 and BSD 3-clause should be compatible
> with each other right?

My point above is that you'd have to accept both X11 and BSD 3-clause
in that situation, if you wanted to reject GPL.  I don't wish to get
into a discussion whether X11 and BSD 3-clause are mutually compatible
with each other, that's lawyer territory. :)

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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