From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: To: David Gibson Subject: Re: Outstanding DTC patches? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:43:24 +1100." <20080104024324.GA4326@localhost.localdomain> References: <1199298062.7345.25.camel@ld0161-tx32> <20080103044843.GD25357@localhost.localdomain> <20080104024324.GA4326@localhost.localdomain> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:38:21 -0600 From: Jon Loeliger Message-Id: Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled: > Ah, I think I sent it by private mail, so it won't be in patchwork. > Here you are: Ah, that explains it. > dtc/libfdt: Add README clarifying licensing > > The fact the dtc are distributed together, but have different licenses > can be a bit confusing. Several people have enquired as to what the > deal is with the libfdt licensing, so this patch adds a README > clarifying the situation with a rationale. > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson After correcting the log-message English a bit, it was applied. The fact that the dtc and libfdt are distributed together, but have different licenses, can be a bit confusing. Several people have enquired as to what the deal is with the libfdt licensing, so this patch adds a README clarifying the situation with a rationale. To be in agreement in the record, I too signed off on that patch. Objections to either, please let me know! Thanks, jdl