Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: cisco: document the CrayAR compatibles

["Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danielwa@cisco.com>]

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/04/2023 19:51, Daniel Walker (danielwa) wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 05:09:15PM +0000, Daniel Walker (danielwa) wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 05:28:03PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 07/04/2023 18:04, Daniel Walker (danielwa) wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> >>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dual license.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What are my choices here? I see this,
> >>>>
> >>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
> >>  
> >>  I don't recall if I did or not.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
> >>>>
> >>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd rather use the later.
> >>>
> >>> Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to
> >>> make here exception?
> >>
> >> I'm sure I can re-license my submissions. I'd have to look into it.
> > 
> > I'm _not_ sure.
> 
> 
> This is a new file - it did not exist in v1 - thus you had to write it.
> If you wrote it, you (or your employer) hold all copyrights, so yes, you
> (or your employer) can relicense it.
> 
> I cannot imagine the case why employer would not like to have dual
> license here (it's beneficial to him, so employer would be acting
> against himself), but if you need to convince him, you can just say,
> that contributing to Open Source project means accepting the licenses in
> that project. The license for new bindings in this project is (GPL-2.0
> or BSD-2), like pointed by checkpatch.


Yes, my employer holds the copyright. However, corporations don't work in the way
you imagine. There is no one "owner" to speak to about re-licensing. The people
who determine the license is an army of lawyers, with an extensive approval
process.

What benefit does a BSD license hold for my employer over GPL v2 ?

Here the licenses currently used by the bindings,

      1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
      1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only)
      1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause */
      1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later)
      3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)
      4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
      4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
      6 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0)
      7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
      7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
     11 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
     12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause)
     12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
     33 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
     47 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
     56 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
    102 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
    350 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
    511 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
    610 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
   1570 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)

Can you explain why so many are allowed to use GPL v2 , but my company is not
allowed? Shouldn't these all be dual licensed if the project only allows dual
license?

It's very likely that new bindings will be made by making a copy of other
bindings, then make modifications. If my company copied bindings which are GPL
v2, then we are required to honor the license of the prior binding
and that means we legally aren't allowed to relicense under BSD AFAIK.

Also the documentation for the bindings here Documentation/devicetree/

changesets.rst
dynamic-resolution-notes.rst
index.rst
kernel-api.rst
of_unittest.rst
overlay-notes.rst
usage-model.rst

all the rst files are GPL v2 and not dual license.

Daniel