Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:28:24 -0800 | From | Scott Branden <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] ARM: dts: Enable Broadcom Cygnus SoC |
| |
On 14-11-10 12:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday 09 November 2014 21:17:37 Scott Branden wrote: >> 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? > > I would prefer a pure BSD header for the moment over a pure GPL header. > The last thing we want is to force other operating systems to create > another set of dts files for the same hardware. I have changed the headers to pure BSD. I hope this is acceptable. > > Arnd >
| |