lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:14:32 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:	Simon Guinot <>,
	Jason Cooper <>,
	Lior Amsalem <>, Andrew Lunn <>,
	Heikki Krogerus <>,
	Nadav Haklai <>,
	Greg Ungerer <>,
	Benoit Masson <>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <>,
	Tawfik Bayouk <>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <>,
	Uwe Kleine-K├Ânig 
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <>,
	"klightspeed @ killerwolves . net" <>,
	Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <>,
	Arnaud Ebalard <>,
	Gregory CLEMENT <>,
	Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <>,
	Marcin Wojtas <>,
	Florian Fainelli <>,
	Simon Baatz <>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <>,
	Ryan Press <>,,
	Philipp Zabel <>,
	Willy Tarreau <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-*: Relicense the device tree under GPLv2+/X11

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;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.

> 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.

> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists