Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] ARM: dts: Enable Broadcom Cygnus SoC

[Scott Branden]

On 14-11-10 12:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 09 November 2014 21:17:37 Scott Branden wrote:
> > On 14-11-09 12:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Sunday 09 November 2014 09:23:11 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 10:49:09PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > > + * Copyright 2014 Broadcom Corporation.  All rights reserved.
> > > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > > + * Unless you and Broadcom execute a separate written software license
> > > > > > > > + * agreement governing use of this software, this software is licensed
> > > > > > > > to you
> > > > > > > > + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> > > > > > > > + * published by the Free Software Foundation version 2.
> > > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > > + * This program is distributed "as is" WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY of any
> > > > > > > > + * kind, whether express or implied; without even the implied warranty
> > > > > > > > + * of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> > > > > > > > + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We ask for new DT contents to be added with dual BSD/GPL license, to
> > > > > > > allow for reuse of the DT data structures in other projects as well.
> > > > > > > There's currently a lot of activity going on relicensing the current
> > > > > > > files so I recommend sorting it out before they are added if you can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This may take more time than you think.  I am going to have to go through
> > > > > > legal to get such a license created. Also, why would you need dual license?
> > > > > > If it is BSD that should serve both purposes?
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't followed the discussion close enough to know if there's been
> > > > > discussion about single-license BSD vs dual BSD/GPL.
> > >
> > > I think for all practical purposes, BSD and dual BSD/GPL is the same and
> > > listing it as dual was meant as a clarification to make it easier to see
> > > that all files in the kernel are GPLv2 compatible.
> > A dual BSD/GPL may involve having me get a lawyer to create such a
> > header.  I would prefer to leave it as GPL for now until some concrete
> > decision has finally been made on this by the rest of the community?
> > Or, I can put it as BSD right now if that helps?
>
> I would prefer a pure BSD header for the moment over a pure GPL header.
> The last thing we want is to force other operating systems to create
> another set of dts files for the same hardware.
I have changed the headers to pure BSD.  I hope this is acceptable.
> 	Arnd

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/