On Mon 2015-05-25 02:14:28, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> > I've added licens...@fsf.ogrg in Cc: in my previous message to have an
> > advice on this subject, but I failed to notice licens...@fsf.org
> > is not a mailing list: I was assigned request
On Mon 2015-05-25 02:14:28, Rob Landley wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Yann Droneaud ydrone...@opteya.com wrote:
I've added licens...@fsf.ogrg in Cc: in my previous message to have an
advice on this subject, but I failed to notice licens...@fsf.org
is not a mailing list: I was
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 7:12 AM, One Thousand Gnomes
> wrote:
>
>> not true, with a proprietary bios it's a clear "pay this much money and don't
>> worry about it" while with GPL there's a nagging fear that someone you never
>> heard of may sue you a decade from now claiming you need to give them
> facts in a dts file. The GPL’d files aren’t stopping anybody from creating
> proprietary software. People that really care will rewrite the files
> from scratch anyway. People that don’t care.. well, one need look
> no further than the difficulty of getting source code to different SoC
> support
> not true, with a proprietary bios it's a clear "pay this much money and don't
> worry about it" while with GPL there's a nagging fear that someone you never
> heard of may sue you a decade from now claiming you need to give them the
> source
> to your OS.
Not really no - the number of
On Jun 1, 2015, at 7:12 AM, One Thousand Gnomes gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
wrote:
not true, with a proprietary bios it's a clear pay this much money and don't
worry about it while with GPL there's a nagging fear that someone you never
heard of may sue you a decade from now claiming you
not true, with a proprietary bios it's a clear pay this much money and don't
worry about it while with GPL there's a nagging fear that someone you never
heard of may sue you a decade from now claiming you need to give them the
source
to your OS.
Not really no - the number of companies
facts in a dts file. The GPL’d files aren’t stopping anybody from creating
proprietary software. People that really care will rewrite the files
from scratch anyway. People that don’t care.. well, one need look
no further than the difficulty of getting source code to different SoC
support
> On May 30, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 22-05-15 12:05, Yann Droneaud wrote:
>> Le mardi 05 mai 2015 à 11:41 -0500, Rob Herring a écrit :
>>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud
>>> wrote:
I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's
On May 30, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Jeroen Hofstee linux-...@myspectrum.nl wrote:
Hi,
On 22-05-15 12:05, Yann Droneaud wrote:
Le mardi 05 mai 2015 à 11:41 -0500, Rob Herring a écrit :
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud ydrone...@opteya.com
wrote:
I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb
Hi,
On 22-05-15 12:05, Yann Droneaud wrote:
Le mardi 05 mai 2015 à 11:41 -0500, Rob Herring a écrit :
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud
wrote:
I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's Device
Tree
Sources (.dts, which #include .dtsi, which #include .h) using
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:16 AM, David Lang wrote:
>> If the DTS license would be a problem, it would be worse w/ ACPI
>> and any proprietary firmware/BIOSes.
>
> not true, with a proprietary bios it's a clear "pay this much money and
> don't worry about it" while with GPL there's a nagging fear
> On May 29, 2015, at 11:10 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> wrote:
>
> Am 29.05.2015 um 05:31 schrieb Rob Landley:
>
> >> What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
>>
>> One problem is that there's no such thing as "The GPL" anymore.
>
> There are different versions. The
Hi,
On 22-05-15 12:05, Yann Droneaud wrote:
Le mardi 05 mai 2015 à 11:41 -0500, Rob Herring a écrit :
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud ydrone...@opteya.com
wrote:
I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's Device
Tree
Sources (.dts, which #include .dtsi, which
On May 29, 2015, at 11:10 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
weig...@melag.de wrote:
Am 29.05.2015 um 05:31 schrieb Rob Landley:
What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
One problem is that there's no such thing as The GPL anymore.
There are different versions. The
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:16 AM, David Lang da...@lang.hm wrote:
If the DTS license would be a problem, it would be worse w/ ACPI
and any proprietary firmware/BIOSes.
not true, with a proprietary bios it's a clear pay this much money and
don't worry about it while with GPL there's a nagging
On Fri, 29 May 2015, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
Important Notice: This message may contain confidential or privileged
information. It is intended only for the person it was addressed to. If you
are not the intended recipient of this email you may not copy, forward,
disclose or
On Fri, 29 May 2015, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
And why should they fear "poisoning" ?
Search for "GPL contamination", the problem is quite common, GPL
can turn anything GPL-compatible into GPL. So for a non-GPL project
it's very hard to adopt GPL code.
Yes, that's the whole
Am 29.05.2015 um 05:31 schrieb Rob Landley:
>> What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
One problem is that there's no such thing as "The GPL" anymore.
There are different versions. The kernel source clearly states
GPLv2 (I, personally, would prefer v3 to prevent Tivoization)
Am 29.05.2015 um 08:47 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Hi,
It's really quite simple. Other open source projects won't touch
_our_ DTB with a barge pole through fear of GPL contamination.
Which other foss projects do you have in mind ?
Any other OS that's not GPL'd and that might be able to run on
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 06:52:52PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> Am 28.05.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
>
> >>What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
> >
> >It's really quite simple. Other open source projects won't touch
> >_our_ DTB with a
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 06:52:52PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
Am 28.05.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
It's really quite simple. Other open source projects won't touch
_our_ DTB with a barge pole
Am 29.05.2015 um 08:47 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Hi,
It's really quite simple. Other open source projects won't touch
_our_ DTB with a barge pole through fear of GPL contamination.
Which other foss projects do you have in mind ?
Any other OS that's not GPL'd and that might be able to run on
Am 29.05.2015 um 05:31 schrieb Rob Landley:
What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
One problem is that there's no such thing as The GPL anymore.
There are different versions. The kernel source clearly states
GPLv2 (I, personally, would prefer v3 to prevent Tivoization)
The
On Fri, 29 May 2015, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
Important Notice: This message may contain confidential or privileged
information. It is intended only for the person it was addressed to. If you
are not the intended recipient of this email you may not copy, forward,
disclose or
On Fri, 29 May 2015, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
And why should they fear poisoning ?
Search for GPL contamination, the problem is quite common, GPL
can turn anything GPL-compatible into GPL. So for a non-GPL project
it's very hard to adopt GPL code.
Yes, that's the whole
2015-05-28 7:32 GMT-05:00 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult :
> Am 25.05.2015 um 09:14 schrieb Rob Landley:
>
>> Personally, I'm sad we're starting to get ACPI for arm but if device
>> tree data files are only available under GPL, people will hold their
>> nose and deploy ACPI.
>
>
> What's the big
Am 28.05.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
It's really quite simple. Other open source projects won't touch
_our_ DTB with a barge pole through fear of GPL contamination.
Which other foss projects do you have in mind ?
And
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:32:20PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> Am 25.05.2015 um 09:14 schrieb Rob Landley:
>
> >Personally, I'm sad we're starting to get ACPI for arm but if device
> >tree data files are only available under GPL, people will hold their
> >nose and deploy
Am 25.05.2015 um 09:14 schrieb Rob Landley:
Personally, I'm sad we're starting to get ACPI for arm but if device
tree data files are only available under GPL, people will hold their
nose and deploy ACPI.
What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
cu
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT
Am 22.05.2015 um 18:26 schrieb Rob Herring:
Hi,
> Ideally, dtb files are shipped with firmware separately from the OS.
> You should be able to run multiple OS's with that dtb. There is often
desire or "requirements" to not have GPL code in firmware.
I dont see that begin shipped *with* the
2015-05-28 7:32 GMT-05:00 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult weig...@melag.de:
Am 25.05.2015 um 09:14 schrieb Rob Landley:
Personally, I'm sad we're starting to get ACPI for arm but if device
tree data files are only available under GPL, people will hold their
nose and deploy ACPI.
What's
Am 25.05.2015 um 09:14 schrieb Rob Landley:
Personally, I'm sad we're starting to get ACPI for arm but if device
tree data files are only available under GPL, people will hold their
nose and deploy ACPI.
What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
cu
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT
Am 22.05.2015 um 18:26 schrieb Rob Herring:
Hi,
Ideally, dtb files are shipped with firmware separately from the OS.
You should be able to run multiple OS's with that dtb. There is often
desire or requirements to not have GPL code in firmware.
I dont see that begin shipped *with* the
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:32:20PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
Am 25.05.2015 um 09:14 schrieb Rob Landley:
Personally, I'm sad we're starting to get ACPI for arm but if device
tree data files are only available under GPL, people will hold their
nose and deploy ACPI.
Am 28.05.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
What's the big deal with having DTS/DTB under GPL ?
It's really quite simple. Other open source projects won't touch
_our_ DTB with a barge pole through fear of GPL contamination.
Which other foss projects do you have in mind ?
And
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 02:14:28AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Personally, I'm sad we're starting to get ACPI for arm
Maybe it was the only solution found to make this platform start to
misbehave like a regular PC and get it even more widely adopted :-)
Willy
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> I've added licens...@fsf.ogrg in Cc: in my previous message to have an
> advice on this subject, but I failed to notice licens...@fsf.org
> is not a mailing list: I was assigned request ID [gnu.org #1017262].
>
> Regards.
They're also not
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Yann Droneaud ydrone...@opteya.com wrote:
I've added licens...@fsf.ogrg in Cc: in my previous message to have an
advice on this subject, but I failed to notice licens...@fsf.org
is not a mailing list: I was assigned request ID [gnu.org #1017262].
Regards.
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 02:14:28AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
Personally, I'm sad we're starting to get ACPI for arm
Maybe it was the only solution found to make this platform start to
misbehave like a regular PC and get it even more widely adopted :-)
Willy
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
> I imagine the includes cause some licensing discrepancies if you
> > dug
> > into it.
> >
>
> It's a pity, and it's probably something to sort out.
>
> DTB files produced as part of kernel compilation should have a well
> known license attached b
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le mardi 05 mai 2015 à 11:41 -0500, Rob Herring a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's Device
>> > Tree
>> > Sources (.dts, which
Hi,
Le mardi 05 mai 2015 à 11:41 -0500, Rob Herring a écrit :
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud
> wrote:
> >
> > I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's Device
> > Tree
> > Sources (.dts, which #include .dtsi, which #include .h) using
> > Device
> > Tree
Hi,
Le mardi 05 mai 2015 à 11:41 -0500, Rob Herring a écrit :
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud ydrone...@opteya.com
wrote:
I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's Device
Tree
Sources (.dts, which #include .dtsi, which #include .h) using
Device
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud ydrone...@opteya.com wrote:
Hi,
Le mardi 05 mai 2015 à 11:41 -0500, Rob Herring a écrit :
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud ydrone...@opteya.com
wrote:
I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's Device
Tree
to a
licensing question you sent to the Free Software Foundation, with subject:
Re: Device Tree Blob (DTB) licence.
There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your request has
been assigned an ID of [gnu.org #1017262].
Please include the string:
[gnu.org #1017262
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's Device Tree
> Sources (.dts, which #include .dtsi, which #include .h) using Device
> Tree Compiler (dtc) are covered by GNU General Public Licence v2
> (GPLv2), but cannot
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Yann Droneaud ydrone...@opteya.com wrote:
Hi,
I believe Device Tree Blob (.dtb file) built from kernel's Device Tree
Sources (.dts, which #include .dtsi, which #include .h) using Device
Tree Compiler (dtc) are covered by GNU General Public Licence v2
(GPLv2),
48 matches
Mail list logo
