[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAThTaHpCWgGyx=qh6v7CsL6DAWfvE1g_jsNcGe-K5e_gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:44:13 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] libfdt: add SPDX-License-Identifier to libfdt wrappers
Hi Rob,
(+CC: David Daney)
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:00 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:19 AM Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >
> > These are kernel source code even though they are just two-line wrappers.
> >
> > Files without explicit license information fall back to GPL-2.0-only,
> > which is the project default.
>
> That is true and these are kernel only files, but given they are just
> a wrapper around the .c files, maybe they should have the same
> license?
I just thought it at first
but this wraps two files, with different license.
include/linux/libfdt_env.h: GPLv2 only
scripts/dtc/libfdt/fdt*.c : GPLv2+ or BSD-2-Clause
Looking at the include/linux/libfdt_env.h,
I thought GPLv2 only would be preferred for
the kernel-specific code.
If you prefer to align with scripts/dtc/libfdt/fdt*.c
I can change it, but I would also respect
the opinion from David Daney, the author of the
following commit:
commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
Author: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Date: Thu Jul 5 18:12:38 2012 +0200
of/lib: Allow scripts/dtc/libfdt to be used from kernel code
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists