On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:29:33PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote:

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 06:50:00PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 07:16:16PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:43:00PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 06:11:56PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:

quoted

On 19/12/2014 18:03, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 05:09:16PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:

quoted

On 19/12/2014 17:02, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 03:36:13PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:

quoted

On 18/12/2014 20:15, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 06:15:40PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
...

quoted

Jason at the end it seems you didn't ack or nack the patches were you
were CC. You expressed some concerns about the GPLv2+ move but I don't know
if it is something that prevents you to give your acked-by.

Oops.  :)  I figured my S-o-B when applying would be sufficient.  That
decision was before we decided on Andrew applying patches this time
around...

For all my dts{i} contributions:

Acked-by: Jason Cooper <redacted>

Thanks :)

quoted

Due to all the merge commits over time and whatnot, it's probably best
to put my Ack on all the patches in this series...

OK no problem. By the way, I take care of collecting all the acked-by and
once it will be done I will either sent the updated patch set with all the
acked-by or maybe just I will create a branch to pull if it is easier to handle.

Ok, that'll be up to Andrew.

Once we have the last few stragglers, and assuming there are no more
NAKs, here's what I'd like to do:

Regrettably, we'll have to revert Simon's dts contributions.  I say

You missed the email he sent yesterday, finally Simon changed his mind
and gave his acked-by.

Indeed, that was for the oneliner change in the armada-370-xp.dtsi file.
I got a bit ahead of myself, but I'm looking towards kirkwood, orion5x,
dove, which brings up:

18ba7e4fe51d ARM: Kirkwood: add DT support for d2 Network v2
2d4cd2cafaea ARM: Kirkwood: allow to use netxbig DTSI for d2net_v2 DTS
a96cc303e42a ARM: mvebu: update the SATA compatible string for Armada 370/XP
d3dde4df4483 ARM: Kirkwood: update Network Space Mini v2 description
98d4f2acb91a ARM: Kirkwood: DT board setup for CloudBox
4ea931e07d77 ARM: Kirkwood: fix ns2 gpios by converting to pinctrl
7f9871d9d30f ARM: kirkwood: DT board setup for Network Space Mini v2
ca7d94524ab3 ARM: kirkwood: DT board setup for Network Space Lite v2
ecee1e47ab42 ARM: kirkwood: DT board setup for Network Space v2 and parents

OK I understand your concern now. About dove and kirkwood, did you notice that
some files didn't have any license?

Yes.

quoted

Especially none of the dove files have a license.

Yes, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.  I suspect it then falls
under the over-arching license of the project.  Regardless, we'll still
need Acks from all contributors.

Hi Jason,

What is the problem with keeping the LaCie DTS files under GPLv2+ only ?

Converting armada-* to dual license is just a small part of the
overarching effort to convert *all* the devicetree files to dual
license.  So, eventually, we'll be doing the same with kirkwood, dove
and orion5x dts{i} files.  Perhaps even during this merge window.

In the long term, we're attempting to provide one neutral place [1] for
the bootloaders and kernels to pull devicetrees from and contribute
changes back to.

OK, let's see if I understand correctly.

If I don't agree with the GPLv2+/x11 relicensing, then support for
almost all the LaCie boards will be removed from the Linux kernel (maybe
during the next merge window) ? Is that correct ?

No.  Nothing will change wrt to the Linux kernel.  In my mind, I've
always viewed arch/arm/boot/dts as a separate repo that happens to be
incubating in the Linux kernel tree.  Right or wrong, I was referring to
the dts/dtsi/bindings eventually standing on their own.  Looking back on
the conversation, I definitely worded it badly.  I apologize for that.

Is there any way we can keep the LaCie DTS files licenced under GPLv2+
_and_ still distributed with the others. Anyone would be free to choose
to use them (or not), in respect of the licence terms.

Yes, the difficulty lies in making that distribution *easy* for other
projects.  They already have their own dts files, why would they adopt
our work if they have to pick through it?

I suspect the eventual solution (after the dts/bindings are their own
repo) will involve adopting the SPDX-* header tag, and then some
scripting to create separate git branches by license.  That would allow
us to keep everything in the repo, make it easy to incorporate /
redistribute based on license, and hopefully reduce the maintenance
burden.

thx,

Jason.