Hi, On 2/27/20 10:47 AM, Roland Hieber wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:44:18AM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >> When patching some parts of the code, the patches need to be dually licensed, > > I don't understand why this is the case, even if docs/license.rst says > so. If libfdt authors and STM allows us to choose between BSD or > GPL-2.0, we can choose to distribute our patches under any one of those. > (And if we choose BSD, which also TF-A did, we don't even need to > license our contributions as BSD since BSD has no copyleft). Sure, our > patches probably won't be accepted upstream by libfdt or STM under only > those licenses, but that's another problem.
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. > In any way I think it's best to resolve this by keeping the original > disjunctive license statements: > > BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause # main license and FreeBSD libc > AND (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause) # libfdt > AND (NCSA OR MIT) # LLVM compiler-rt > AND Zlib # zlib > AND (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-3-Clause) # STM platform code> > This way it is clear that we can choose between GPL and BSD for parts of > the code, even if the most reasonable outcome of the calculation of all > license terms is effectively BSD-3-Clause. Will do in v4. Thanks for your input, Ahmad > > - Roland > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list [email protected]
