Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:29:33 +0100 | From | Simon Guinot <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-*: Relicense the device tree under GPLv2+/X11 |
| |
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: > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:43:00PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 06:11:56PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > > On 19/12/2014 18:03, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 05:09:16PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > > >> On 19/12/2014 17:02, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > >>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 03:36:13PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > > >>>> On 18/12/2014 20:15, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 06:15:40PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > > >>>>> ... > > > > >>>>>> Jason at the end it seems you didn't ack or nack the patches were you > > > > >>>>>> were CC. You expressed some concerns about the GPLv2+ move but I don't know > > > > >>>>>> if it is something that prevents you to give your acked-by. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Oops. :) I figured my S-o-B when applying would be sufficient. That > > > > >>>>> decision was before we decided on Andrew applying patches this time > > > > >>>>> around... > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> For all my dts{i} contributions: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks :) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Due to all the merge commits over time and whatnot, it's probably best > > > > >>>>> to put my Ack on all the patches in this series... > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> OK no problem. By the way, I take care of collecting all the acked-by and > > > > >>>> once it will be done I will either sent the updated patch set with all the > > > > >>>> acked-by or maybe just I will create a branch to pull if it is easier to handle. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Ok, that'll be up to Andrew. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Once we have the last few stragglers, and assuming there are no more > > > > >>> NAKs, here's what I'd like to do: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regrettably, we'll have to revert Simon's dts contributions. I say > > > > >> > > > > >> You missed the email he sent yesterday, finally Simon changed his mind > > > > >> and gave his acked-by. > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, that was for the oneliner change in the armada-370-xp.dtsi file. > > > > > I got a bit ahead of myself, but I'm looking towards kirkwood, orion5x, > > > > > dove, which brings up: > > > > > > > > > > 18ba7e4fe51d ARM: Kirkwood: add DT support for d2 Network v2 > > > > > 2d4cd2cafaea ARM: Kirkwood: allow to use netxbig DTSI for d2net_v2 DTS > > > > > a96cc303e42a ARM: mvebu: update the SATA compatible string for Armada 370/XP > > > > > d3dde4df4483 ARM: Kirkwood: update Network Space Mini v2 description > > > > > 98d4f2acb91a ARM: Kirkwood: DT board setup for CloudBox > > > > > 4ea931e07d77 ARM: Kirkwood: fix ns2 gpios by converting to pinctrl > > > > > 7f9871d9d30f ARM: kirkwood: DT board setup for Network Space Mini v2 > > > > > ca7d94524ab3 ARM: kirkwood: DT board setup for Network Space Lite v2 > > > > > ecee1e47ab42 ARM: kirkwood: DT board setup for Network Space v2 and parents > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK I understand your concern now. About dove and kirkwood, did you notice that > > > > some files didn't have any license? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > 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 ?
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 ?
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.
Simon [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |