[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150428170909.GG8069@io.lakedaemon.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:09:09 +0000
From: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@...e.fr>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: dove: Relicense the device tree under
GPLv2+/X11
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> On 28.04.2015 17:59, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:09:04AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> >>The current implicit GPL only licensing on the device tree makes it
> >>very impractical for other software components licensed under another
> >>license.
> >>
> >>In order to make it easier for them to reuse our device trees,
> >>relicense our device trees under a GPL/X11 dual-license.
> >>
> [...]
> >>so I decided to keep the whole relicensing in a single patch. Please send
> >>your Acked-by's in reply to this patch if you are happy with the relicensing.
> >
> >I normally don't include the "or later version" for my license changes
> >as I've only accepted to contribute under the terms of GPLv2.
>
> Ok, I guess this is a NACK for GPLv2+ but an Acked-by if we limit the
> GPL part to GPLv2 only?
>
> If so, is everybody else who already Acked the GPLv2+ part also fine
> with reducing the GPL version to "version 2 only" ?
Re-Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
thx,
Jason.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists