On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 01:22:33PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote:

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:14:32PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Monday 22 December 2014 12:29:33 Simon Guinot wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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 ?

Definitely not during the next merge window. Eventually the plan is
to remove *all* dts files from the kernel, but we're a long way
away from that.

There is already a mirror of the dts files at
http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/ianc/device-tree-rebasing.git;a=summary
which is hosting files that are meant to be shared with Xen, which is
also under the GPL, and supports a lot of the same hardware that Linux
supports, but also depends on passing the correct (modified) dtb blobs
to the Dom0 kernel.

The current setup works ok for Xen, but occasionally there are requests
for having the files shared more broadly, e.g. with FreeBSD and with boot
loaders that might be non-GPL but are used to boot Linux and that want
to ship with a default dtb for a platform they run on.

Minus some details you just provided, that's what I understood in a
first place.

quoted

quoted

Since all the LaCie boards DTS are at least based on my work (except for
the Orion ED Mini v2), I think there is 12 files concerned here. See the
command output: grep -l lacie *.dts | wc -l.

The oldest of this boards have been supported by the Linux kernel since
the 2.6.32 release. Also some of this boards are still widely used...

You know, it is quite a statement you are sending here: The GPLv2+
licences are not good enough to get an ARM-based board supported by
the Linux kernel, while it has always been the case until now. Are all
the maintainers SoC, ARM SoC, ARM and Linux well aligned with that ?

I think you just misunderstood.

Jason said:

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

This words changed my understanding. Then, you confirm I don't have to
worry about that ?

Yup.  To be clear, this is the part I worded badly. :-/  In my mind, I
was looking at the separate devicetree repo that could be shared
broadly.  *Not* the Linux kernel repo.

quoted

quoted

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.

What I suspect will happen is that we end up with multiple repositories
for dts files, e.g. one that contains all files that are GPL-compatible
and another one that contains the subset that is licensed under more
permissive licenses such as the X11 or some BSD license. I don't see
a reason for Linux to stop supporting the former, but it would be nice
to have a larger shared subset.

I think it would be indeed a good idea to have a repository with some
licence separations.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Thanks for sticking with a difficult conversation.  Let me know what you
think of the idea I proposed in my other email.

thx,

Jason.