linux-kernel - Re: Device Tree Blob (DTB) licence

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-Id: <48C6A1C9-0959-4E88-8646-45FA2C18A776@bsdimp.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:19:31 -0600
From:	Warner Losh <imp@...imp.com>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <weigelt@...ag.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Subject: Re: Device Tree Blob (DTB) licence


> On Jun 1, 2015, at 7:12 AM, One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> not true, with a proprietary bios it's a clear "pay this much money and don't
>> worry about it" while with GPL there's a nagging fear that someone you never
>> heard of may sue you a decade from now claiming you need to give them the source
>> to your OS.
> 
> Not really no - the number of companies who bought proprietary products,
> resold them and then got sued because their supplier was cavalier is
> huge.

I follow the suits pretty closely, and the number is tiny. There’s a huge hue
and cry, sure. But the number is small compared to the offenses. And the outcomes
aren’t always what one would hope. The big guys with staying power care.
The rest are hit or miss.

>> note, this whole discussion assumes that the DTB is even copyrightable. Since
>> it's intended to be strictly a functional description of what the hardware is
>> able to do, that could be questioned
> 
> I imagine you can write a DTB that is copyrightable and one that isn't.
> 
> However this is all missing one important point. Whoever wrote their DTB
> gets to decide how they license it. It's nobody else's business.

Actually it is other people’s business. There’s no harm in asking for a license
that would help the whole ecosystem.

Warner


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (843 bytes)