Re: [PATCH 06/11] dt-bindings: mips: Add bindings for Mobileye SoCs

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 04:55:08PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hello Rob,
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:11 AM Gregory CLEMENT
> > <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Add the yaml bindings for Mobileye SoCs. Currently only EyeQ5 is
> >> supported
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml    | 36 +++++++++
> >>  include/dt-bindings/soc/mobileye,eyeq5.h      | 77 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 113 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml
> >>  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/soc/mobileye,eyeq5.h
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..f47767bc2c8f
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
> >
> > Use what checkpatch tells you.
> 
> >From my point of view GPL-2.0-or-later is compatible with GPL-2.0-only,
> but OK I will do this.

GPL-2.0-only is compatible with GPL3, so why does that matter? And MIT 
is compatible with BSD-2-Clause, but we don't include that. 

Are we okay with GPLv4, v5, ...?

What I really care about is having a free-for-all and having a 
proliferation of different licenses and combinations of licenses under 
bindings. If everyone paid attention, then I wouldn't care. But they 
don't and just copy code around. We already have a license mess with DT 
headers and .dts files. Besides the copying problem, it is not hard to 
find GPL only license included in dual or BSD/MIT only licensed .dts 
files. Seems like an issue to me.

Rob