From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753536AbbI1U0W (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:26:22 -0400 Received: from pandora.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:53489 "EHLO pandora.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753461AbbI1U0U (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:26:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:26:08 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Li Yang Cc: Rob Herring , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , lkml , Sharma Bhupesh , Stuart Yoder , Peter Newton Subject: Re: License for ARM device tree file Message-ID: <20150928202607.GF21513@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20150928192931.GE21513@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > 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.