Re: License for ARM device tree file

[Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:19:05PM -0500, Li Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > However, we can't dictate to people what license they wish to submit
> > their work under; though, we can make the decision whether to accept
> > it under the license terms or not.
> 
> But I'm wondering if we submit a device tree patch using other GPL
> compatible permissive license(like GPL/3-clause-BSD dual license)
> which doesn't include any other device tree files, will it still be
> acceptable or not?

I don't see why it wouldn't be acceptable.  The only thing that matters
for Linux itself is that it's GPL v2 compatible since the kernel is a
GPL v2 project.

> > I think the problem will come if we try to mix a file that's licensed
> > one way, which includes files licensed under a different set of
> > licenses... if you want to use a file licensed under BSD 3-clause but
> > don't want to agree to the GPL license (so you're only bound by the
> > BSD 3-clause license) and that file includes some GPL/X11 licensed
> > files, then what?
> 
> Permissive licenses like X11 and BSD 3-clause should be compatible
> with each other right?

My point above is that you'd have to accept both X11 and BSD 3-clause
in that situation, if you wanted to reject GPL.  I don't wish to get
into a discussion whether X11 and BSD 3-clause are mutually compatible
with each other, that's lawyer territory. :)

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.