Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:17:37 -0800 | From | Scott Branden <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] ARM: dts: Enable Broadcom Cygnus SoC |
| |
On 14-11-09 12:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday 09 November 2014 09:23:11 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 10:49:09PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: >>>>>> +/* >>>>>> + * Copyright 2014 Broadcom Corporation. All rights reserved. >>>>>> + * >>>>>> + * Unless you and Broadcom execute a separate written software license >>>>>> + * agreement governing use of this software, this software is licensed >>>>>> to you >>>>>> + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as >>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation version 2. >>>>>> + * >>>>>> + * This program is distributed "as is" WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY of any >>>>>> + * kind, whether express or implied; without even the implied warranty >>>>>> + * of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the >>>>>> + * GNU General Public License for more details. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We ask for new DT contents to be added with dual BSD/GPL license, to >>>>> allow for reuse of the DT data structures in other projects as well. >>>>> There's currently a lot of activity going on relicensing the current >>>>> files so I recommend sorting it out before they are added if you can. >>>> >>>> >>>> This may take more time than you think. I am going to have to go through >>>> legal to get such a license created. Also, why would you need dual license? >>>> If it is BSD that should serve both purposes? >>> >>> I haven't followed the discussion close enough to know if there's been >>> discussion about single-license BSD vs dual BSD/GPL. > > I think for all practical purposes, BSD and dual BSD/GPL is the same and > listing it as dual was meant as a clarification to make it easier to see > that all files in the kernel are GPLv2 compatible. A dual BSD/GPL may involve having me get a lawyer to create such a header. I would prefer to leave it as GPL for now until some concrete decision has finally been made on this by the rest of the community? Or, I can put it as BSD right now if that helps? > >>> At the very least, please start the process of getting it changed. >>> >>> Also, I see now that this isn't even a clean GPL v2, given "Unless you >>> and Broadcom..." language. I see the bnx2x driver had that in the >>> past, but none of the Kona contributions did. I strongly suggest >>> sticking to the normal copyrights here and not making things more >>> complicated than they have to. >> >> I'm thinking that the "unless you and Broadcom..." language really >> doesn't mean much other than what all other files in the kernel mean >> from what I can tell. This should just default to GPLv2 and everyone >> should be ok. > > I would hope so at least. It's certainly not obvious whether that means > Broadcom can give additional rights to someone over what someone else > contributed upstream, or worse if this becomes GPL-incompatible and > makes the kernel undistributable for anybody who has an additional > license agreement that doesn't give them all the rights that they already > had under the GPL. I'll change the header on these files so there are no disagreements. > > Arnd >
| |