Re: [PATCH 00/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-*: Relicense the device tree under GPLv2+/X11

[Simon Guinot]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:14:32PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 22 December 2014 12:29:33 Simon Guinot wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:50:00PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 07:16:16PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote:
> > > > > > Especially none of the dove files have a license.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.  I suspect it then falls
> > > > > under the over-arching license of the project.  Regardless, we'll still
> > > > > need Acks from all contributors.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > 
> > > > What is the problem with keeping the LaCie DTS files under GPLv2+ only ?
> > > 
> > > Converting armada-* to dual license is just a small part of the
> > > overarching effort to convert *all* the devicetree files to dual
> > > license.  So, eventually, we'll be doing the same with kirkwood, dove
> > > and orion5x dts{i} files.  Perhaps even during this merge window.
> > > 
> > > In the long term, we're attempting to provide one neutral place [1] for
> > > the bootloaders and kernels to pull devicetrees from and contribute
> > > changes back to.
> > 
> > OK, let's see if I understand correctly.
> > 
> > If I don't agree with the GPLv2+/x11 relicensing, then support for
> > almost all the LaCie boards will be removed from the Linux kernel (maybe
> > during the next merge window) ? Is that correct ?
> 
> Definitely not during the next merge window. Eventually the plan is
> to remove *all* dts files from the kernel, but we're a long way
> away from that.
> 
> There is already a mirror of the dts files at
> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/ianc/device-tree-rebasing.git;a=summary
> which is hosting files that are meant to be shared with Xen, which is
> also under the GPL, and supports a lot of the same hardware that Linux
> supports, but also depends on passing the correct (modified) dtb blobs
> to the Dom0 kernel.
> 
> The current setup works ok for Xen, but occasionally there are requests
> for having the files shared more broadly, e.g. with FreeBSD and with boot
> loaders that might be non-GPL but are used to boot Linux and that want
> to ship with a default dtb for a platform they run on.

Minus some details you just provided, that's what I understood in a
first place.

> 
> > Since all the LaCie boards DTS are at least based on my work (except for
> > the Orion ED Mini v2), I think there is 12 files concerned here. See the
> > command output: grep -l lacie *.dts | wc -l.
> > 
> > The oldest of this boards have been supported by the Linux kernel since
> > the 2.6.32 release. Also some of this boards are still widely used...
> > 
> > You know, it is quite a statement you are sending here: The GPLv2+
> > licences are not good enough to get an ARM-based board supported by
> > the Linux kernel, while it has always been the case until now. Are all
> > the maintainers SoC, ARM SoC, ARM and Linux well aligned with that ?
> 
> I think you just misunderstood.

Jason said:

"Regrettably, we'll have to revert Simon's dts contributions".

This words changed my understanding. Then, you confirm I don't have to
worry about that ?

> 
> > Is there any way we can keep the LaCie DTS files licenced under GPLv2+
> > _and_ still distributed with the others. Anyone would be free to choose
> > to use them (or not), in respect of the licence terms.
> 
> What I suspect will happen is that we end up with multiple repositories
> for dts files, e.g. one that contains all files that are GPL-compatible
> and another one that contains the subset that is licensed under more
> permissive licenses such as the X11 or some BSD license. I don't see
> a reason for Linux to stop supporting the former, but it would be nice
> to have a larger shared subset.

I think it would be indeed a good idea to have a repository with some
licence separations.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature