linux-kernel - Re: License for ARM device tree file

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: <CADRPPNQniPRmLq4WmSPU818=PafUV99djC9JveajMVdxARz0KA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:19:05 -0500
From:	Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sharma Bhupesh <bhupesh.sharma@...escale.com>,
	Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@...escale.com>,
	Peter Newton <Peter.Newton@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: License for ARM device tree file

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 07:14:30PM +0000, Li Leo wrote:
>> I saw some discussion going on last year about the permissive license
>> to be used in ARM device tree files.  I know a lot of files have been
>> changed to use GPLv2/X11 license.  But may I know if GPLv2/BSD 3-clause
>> dual license is still a valid license to use in ARM device tree files.
>> It has been our standard permissive license used for a long time in
>> many components like device trees in Power architecture.
>
> It would have been nice to have had some input at the time that what
> little discussion there was happened.
>
> I'm sorry, but at this point I'm of the opinion that the window for
> discussing what license we switch to has been had, and the matter is
> settled; those who didn't take part in the discussion have themselves
> to blame if they don't like the outcome.
>
> What I'm saying is that I doubt anyone has the stomach to go through
> another set of license changes on the existing files to suit some
> late-commer to the party.
>

Right.  I'm not proposing to change all the device trees into another
license.  GPL/X11 is actually a good license to use.

> However, we can't dictate to people what license they wish to submit
> their work under; though, we can make the decision whether to accept
> it under the license terms or not.

But I'm wondering if we submit a device tree patch using other GPL
compatible permissive license(like GPL/3-clause-BSD dual license)
which doesn't include any other device tree files, will it still be
acceptable or not?

>
> I think the problem will come if we try to mix a file that's licensed
> one way, which includes files licensed under a different set of
> licenses... if you want to use a file licensed under BSD 3-clause but
> don't want to agree to the GPL license (so you're only bound by the
> BSD 3-clause license) and that file includes some GPL/X11 licensed
> files, then what?

Permissive licenses like X11 and BSD 3-clause should be compatible
with each other right?

Regards,
Leo
--
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/