dt-bindings: cisco: document the CrayAR compatibles
PATCH v2 2/2 dt-bindings: cisco: document the CrayAR compatibles
Describe the compatible properties for the Cisco CrayAR SoC.
--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +27 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: Cisco CrayAR based Platforms + +maintainers: + - [email protected] + +description: + Cisco CrayAR boards with CrayAR SOC + +properties: + $nodename: + const: '/' + compatible: + oneOf: + - description: Cisco CrayAR Argos evaluation board + items: + - const: cisco,crayar-argos + - const: cisco,crayar + +additionalProperties: true + +...
Signature · 1 line
2.25.1
Quoted 6 lines · Daniel Walker
Describe the compatible properties for the Cisco CrayAR SoC.
Cc Marcin Wierzbicki <[email protected]>Cc Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>Cc Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Please drop the autogenerated scripts/get_maintainer.pl CC-entries from commit msg. There is no single need to store automated output of get_maintainers.pl in the git log. It can be easily re-created at any given time, thus its presence in the git history is redundant and obfuscates the log.
If you need it for your own patch management purposes, keep it under the --- separator.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml
Quoted 11 lines
Signed-off-by Daniel Walker <[email protected]>--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yamlDocumentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +0
-0
How many (or not many) platforms do you expect from Cisco? We mostly have one file per SoC manufacturer.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml line 1
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
Dual license.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml line 8
Quoted 7 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +7
-0+%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: Cisco CrayAR based Platforms +
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 8 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 6 lines · Daniel Walker
Describe the compatible properties for the Cisco CrayAR SoC.
Cc Marcin Wierzbicki <[email protected]>Cc Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>Cc Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Quoted 8 lines
Please drop the autogenerated
scripts/get_maintainer.plCC-entries from commit msg. There is no single need to store automated output of get_maintainers.pl in the git log. It can be easily re-created at any given time, thus its presence in the git history is redundant and obfuscates the log.If you need it for your own patch management purposes, keep it under the --- separator.
I added these, so it's not script output. I can move them under the separator. The reason for that was to make sure people who commented get Cc'd.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Signed-off-by Daniel Walker <[email protected]>--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml
Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml
Quoted 5 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +0
-0How many (or not many) platforms do you expect from Cisco? We mostly have one file per SoC manufacturer.
We have two SoC's one called CrayAR and another called Craw. I've submitted the Craw dts file before , but I've not resubmitted it. Under Craw I think we have at least two, but more likely five variations. CrayAR we have one variation with at least one more planned.
So we would plan over time to add two dtsi files and three to four dts files to this directory. Then more over time.
Daniel
Quoted 15 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 14 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 6 lines · Daniel Walker
Describe the compatible properties for the Cisco CrayAR SoC.
Cc Marcin Wierzbicki <[email protected]>Cc Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>Cc Rob Herring <[email protected]>Please drop the autogenerated
scripts/get_maintainer.plCC-entries from commit msg. There is no single need to store automated output of get_maintainers.pl in the git log. It can be easily re-created at any given time, thus its presence in the git history is redundant and obfuscates the log.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
If you need it for your own patch management purposes, keep it under the --- separator.
I added these, so it's not script output. I can move them under the separator. The reason for that was to make sure people who commented get Cc'd.
So read my message again. There is no reason to add these entries for people who are listed as maintainers, because you are supposed to CC maintainers always.
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Signed-off-by Daniel Walker <[email protected]>--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yamlQuoted 8 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml
Quoted 5 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +0
-0How many (or not many) platforms do you expect from Cisco? We mostly have one file per SoC manufacturer.
Quoted 7 lines
We have two SoC's one called CrayAR and another called Craw. I've submitted the Craw dts file before , but I've not resubmitted it. Under Craw I think we have at least two, but more likely five variations. CrayAR we have one variation with at least one more planned.
So we would plan over time to add two dtsi files and three to four dts files to this directory. Then more over time.
So just keep them in one file maybe.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 19 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 18 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 16 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 6 lines · Daniel Walker
Describe the compatible properties for the Cisco CrayAR SoC.
Cc Marcin Wierzbicki <[email protected]>Cc Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>Cc Rob Herring <[email protected]>Please drop the autogenerated
scripts/get_maintainer.plCC-entries from commit msg. There is no single need to store automated output of get_maintainers.pl in the git log. It can be easily re-created at any given time, thus its presence in the git history is redundant and obfuscates the log.If you need it for your own patch management purposes, keep it under the --- separator.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I added these, so it's not script output. I can move them under the separator. The reason for that was to make sure people who commented get Cc'd.
So read my message again. There is no reason to add these entries for people who are listed as maintainers, because you are supposed to CC maintainers always.
Maintainers change over time.. I'd rather not have to keep track of who the maintainers are at any given time.
I won't delete this, but I offered to move it under the separator.
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Signed-off-by Daniel Walker <[email protected]>--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yamlQuoted 8 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml
Quoted 5 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +0
-0How many (or not many) platforms do you expect from Cisco? We mostly have one file per SoC manufacturer.
We have two SoC's one called CrayAR and another called Craw. I've submitted the Craw dts file before , but I've not resubmitted it. Under Craw I think we have at least two, but more likely five variations. CrayAR we have one variation with at least one more planned.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So we would plan over time to add two dtsi files and three to four dts files to this directory. Then more over time.
So just keep them in one file maybe.
If/when I submit again with anther chip we can discuss it at that time.
Daniel
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
+++
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yamlHow many (or not many) platforms do you expect from Cisco? We mostly have one file per SoC manufacturer.
We have two SoC's one called CrayAR and another called Craw. I've submitted the Craw dts file before , but I've not resubmitted it. Under Craw I think we have at least two, but more likely five variations. CrayAR we have one variation with at least one more planned.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So we would plan over time to add two dtsi files and three to four dts files to this directory. Then more over time.
So just keep them in one file maybe.
If/when I submit again with anther chip we can discuss it at that time.
Or you can do it now.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 11 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
+++
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yamlHow many (or not many) platforms do you expect from Cisco? We mostly have one file per SoC manufacturer.
We have two SoC's one called CrayAR and another called Craw. I've submitted the Craw dts file before , but I've not resubmitted it. Under Craw I think we have at least two, but more likely five variations. CrayAR we have one variation with at least one more planned.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So we would plan over time to add two dtsi files and three to four dts files to this directory. Then more over time.
So just keep them in one file maybe.
If/when I submit again with anther chip we can discuss it at that time.
Or you can do it now.
What do you want to talk about exactly ? You said keep everything in one file, doesn't this already fit your suggestion ? I'm only submitting one file.
What are you envisioning Cisco to do ?
Daniel
Quoted 15 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 14 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 13 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
+++
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yamlHow many (or not many) platforms do you expect from Cisco? We mostly have one file per SoC manufacturer.
We have two SoC's one called CrayAR and another called Craw. I've submitted the Craw dts file before , but I've not resubmitted it. Under Craw I think we have at least two, but more likely five variations. CrayAR we have one variation with at least one more planned.
So we would plan over time to add two dtsi files and three to four dts files to this directory. Then more over time.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
So just keep them in one file maybe.
If/when I submit again with anther chip we can discuss it at that time.
Or you can do it now.
What do you want to talk about exactly ? You said keep everything in one file, doesn't this already fit your suggestion ? I'm only submitting one file.
That is supposed to be one file named like: cisco.yaml If you ever need to have separate maintainers, then split it.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 20 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 19 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 18 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 16 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
+++
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yamlHow many (or not many) platforms do you expect from Cisco? We mostly have one file per SoC manufacturer.
We have two SoC's one called CrayAR and another called Craw. I've submitted the Craw dts file before , but I've not resubmitted it. Under Craw I think we have at least two, but more likely five variations. CrayAR we have one variation with at least one more planned.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So we would plan over time to add two dtsi files and three to four dts files to this directory. Then more over time.
So just keep them in one file maybe.
If/when I submit again with anther chip we can discuss it at that time.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
Or you can do it now.
What do you want to talk about exactly ? You said keep everything in one file, doesn't this already fit your suggestion ? I'm only submitting one file.
That is supposed to be one file named like:
cisco.yamlIf you ever need to have separate maintainers, then split it.
Ok.
Daniel
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml line 1
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-onlyDual license.
What are my choices here? I see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
I'd rather use the later.
Daniel
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml line 1
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-onlyDual license.
What are my choices here? I see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
Quoted 6 lines
Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
I'd rather use the later.
Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to make here exception?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 8 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml line 1
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-onlyDual license.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What are my choices here? I see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
I don't recall if I did or not.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
I'd rather use the later.
Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to make here exception?
I'm sure I can re-license my submissions. I'd have to look into it.
Dainel
Quoted 20 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 8 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml line 1
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-onlyDual license.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What are my choices here? I see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
I don't recall if I did or not.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
I'd rather use the later.
Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to make here exception?
I'm sure I can re-license my submissions. I'd have to look into it.
I'm _not_ sure.
Quoted 23 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 22 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 8 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml line 1
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cisco/crayar.yaml new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-onlyDual license.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What are my choices here? I see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
I don't recall if I did or not.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
I'd rather use the later.
Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to make here exception?
I'm sure I can re-license my submissions. I'd have to look into it.
I'm _not_ sure.
This is a new file - it did not exist in v1 - thus you had to write it. If you wrote it, you (or your employer) hold all copyrights, so yes, you (or your employer) can relicense it.
I cannot imagine the case why employer would not like to have dual license here (it's beneficial to him, so employer would be acting against himself), but if you need to convince him, you can just say, that contributing to Open Source project means accepting the licenses in that project. The license for new bindings in this project is (GPL-2.0 or BSD-2), like pointed by checkpatch.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 38 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 23 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 22 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 8 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Review line 1
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-onlyDual license.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What are my choices here? I see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
I don't recall if I did or not.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
I'd rather use the later.
Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to make here exception?
I'm sure I can re-license my submissions. I'd have to look into it.
I'm _not_ sure.
This is a new file - it did not exist in v1 - thus you had to write it. If you wrote it, you (or your employer) hold all copyrights, so yes, you (or your employer) can relicense it.
Quoted 6 lines
I cannot imagine the case why employer would not like to have dual license here (it's beneficial to him, so employer would be acting against himself), but if you need to convince him, you can just say, that contributing to Open Source project means accepting the licenses in that project. The license for new bindings in this project is (GPL-2.0 or BSD-2), like pointed by checkpatch.
Yes, my employer holds the copyright. However, corporations don't work in the way you imagine. There is no one "owner" to speak to about re-licensing. The people who determine the license is an army of lawyers, with an extensive approval process.
What benefit does a BSD license hold for my employer over GPL v2 ?
Here the licenses currently used by the bindings,
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only)
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause */
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later)
3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)
4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
6 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0)
7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
11 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause)
12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
33 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
47 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
56 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
102 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
350 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
511 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
610 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)1570 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Can you explain why so many are allowed to use GPL v2 , but my company is not allowed? Shouldn't these all be dual licensed if the project only allows dual license?
It's very likely that new bindings will be made by making a copy of other bindings, then make modifications. If my company copied bindings which are GPL v2, then we are required to honor the license of the prior binding and that means we legally aren't allowed to relicense under BSD AFAIK.
Also the documentation for the bindings here Documentation/devicetree/
changesets.rstdynamic-resolution-notes.rstindex.rstkernel-api.rstof_unittest.rstoverlay-notes.rstusage-model.rst
all the rst files are GPL v2 and not dual license.
Daniel
Quoted 47 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 38 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 23 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 22 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 8 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Review line 1
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-onlyDual license.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What are my choices here? I see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
I don't recall if I did or not.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
I'd rather use the later.
Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to make here exception?
I'm sure I can re-license my submissions. I'd have to look into it.
I'm _not_ sure.
This is a new file - it did not exist in v1 - thus you had to write it. If you wrote it, you (or your employer) hold all copyrights, so yes, you (or your employer) can relicense it.
Quoted 6 lines
I cannot imagine the case why employer would not like to have dual license here (it's beneficial to him, so employer would be acting against himself), but if you need to convince him, you can just say, that contributing to Open Source project means accepting the licenses in that project. The license for new bindings in this project is (GPL-2.0 or BSD-2), like pointed by checkpatch.
Quoted 4 lines
Yes, my employer holds the copyright. However, corporations don't work in the way you imagine. There is no one "owner" to speak to about re-licensing. The people who determine the license is an army of lawyers, with an extensive approval process.
Yes, I understand this. But also how corporations work should not really be my problem. Especially that many of them were able to relicense even existing work, not mentioning new work. New work is piece of cake comparing with army of lawyers for existing, released work! Yet they could...
Quoted 2 lines
What benefit does a BSD license hold for my employer over GPL v2 ?
As BSD is permissive, it does not force the employer or its customer to release the derived works to customers. GPL requires it (simplifying now). The employer and its customer have now choice. Dual license gives more choices. More choices is beneficial for the company or its customers, isn't?
Quoted 23 lines
Here the licenses currently used by the bindings,
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only) 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause */ 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later) 3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11) 4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later 4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) 6 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0) 7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause) 7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause 11 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ 12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause) 12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) 33 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause) 47 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause 56 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause 102 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only 350 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause 511 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 610 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
Quoted 5 lines
1570 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Can you explain why so many are allowed to use GPL v2 , but my company is not allowed? Shouldn't these all be dual licensed if the project only allows dual license?
The rule is for new bindings. All new bindings are forced to follow this rule. Why do you think we treat Cisco special? Who else was allowed? Can we be specific?
Linking here existing bindings is not really an argument. What does it prove?
Quoted 5 lines
It's very likely that new bindings will be made by making a copy of other bindings, then make modifications. If my company copied bindings which are GPL v2, then we are required to honor the license of the prior binding and that means we legally aren't allowed to relicense under BSD AFAIK.
So copy some bindings which are dual-licensed... Since this is new work, you can do it.
Quoted 11 lines
Also the documentation for the bindings here
Documentation/devicetree/
changesets.rstdynamic-resolution-notes.rstindex.rstkernel-api.rstof_unittest.rstoverlay-notes.rstusage-model.rst
Quoted 1 line
all the rst files are GPL v2 and not dual license.
These are not bindings, so I do not understand your argument. What do you prove? That non-bindings do not have to use bindings rules? Yes, they are not bindings...
Anyway, I feel like we are making some useless circles and wasting quite a lot of energy on trivial rule. I tried to explain it, but if you do not like it - it's your choice. It will be a NAK.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Reviewed-by Rob Herring Reviewed-by Krzysztof Kozlowski Reviewed-by Marijn SuijtenQuoted 60 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 47 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 38 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 23 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 22 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 8 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Review line 1
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-onlyDual license.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What are my choices here? I see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Yes, the one suggested by the checkpatch. Did you run it?
I don't recall if I did or not.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Which appears to be what your suggesting. I also see this,
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
I'd rather use the later.
Why? Bindings should be licensed under BSD, so what is the reason to make here exception?
I'm sure I can re-license my submissions. I'd have to look into it.
I'm _not_ sure.
This is a new file - it did not exist in v1 - thus you had to write it. If you wrote it, you (or your employer) hold all copyrights, so yes, you (or your employer) can relicense it.
Quoted 6 lines
I cannot imagine the case why employer would not like to have dual license here (it's beneficial to him, so employer would be acting against himself), but if you need to convince him, you can just say, that contributing to Open Source project means accepting the licenses in that project. The license for new bindings in this project is (GPL-2.0 or BSD-2), like pointed by checkpatch.
Quoted 4 lines
Yes, my employer holds the copyright. However, corporations don't work in the way you imagine. There is no one "owner" to speak to about re-licensing. The people who determine the license is an army of lawyers, with an extensive approval process.
Yes, I understand this. But also how corporations work should not really be my problem. Especially that many of them were able to relicense even existing work, not mentioning new work. New work is piece of cake comparing with army of lawyers for existing, released work! Yet they could...
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
What benefit does a BSD license hold for my employer over GPL v2 ?
As BSD is permissive, it does not force the employer or its customer to release the derived works to customers. GPL requires it (simplifying now). The employer and its customer have now choice. Dual license gives more choices. More choices is beneficial for the company or its customers, isn't?
I don't think we derive value from this because Cisco only sells chips internally, not externally.
Quoted 30 lines
Quoted 24 lines
Here the licenses currently used by the bindings,
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only) 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause */ 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later) 3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11) 4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later 4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) 6 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0) 7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause) 7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause 11 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ 12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause) 12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) 33 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause) 47 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause 56 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause 102 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only 350 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause 511 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 610 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)Quoted 5 lines
1570 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Can you explain why so many are allowed to use GPL v2 , but my company is not allowed? Shouldn't these all be dual licensed if the project only allows dual license?
Quoted 6 lines
The rule is for new bindings. All new bindings are forced to follow this rule. Why do you think we treat Cisco special? Who else was allowed? Can we be specific?
Linking here existing bindings is not really an argument. What does it prove?
It shows the "rule" is not consistent. Sometime GPL v2 is ok, sometimes not.
Here's is the last GPL v2 only binding added,
commit f9b8556d5799b612404e19b21dd7624d551f71df
Author: Johan Jonker <[email protected]> Date: Thu Dec 22 15:28:53 2022 +0100
dt-bindings: usb: convert fcs,fusb302.txt to yaml
Convert fcs,fusb302.txt to yaml.
Changed:
Add vbus-supply property
This was only a few months ago. It's a new yaml file with a new license line, made from an existing text file. I can see how maybe this uses parts of the GPL v2 txt files so you could not relicense to BSD.
here's one less than a year ago,
commit bdeb3cf013d0d1d09ff3bf66ba139ab259dab3a4
Author: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]> Date: Mon Jul 4 20:24:48 2022 +0300
dt-bindings: clock: separate bindings for MSM8916 GCC device
Separate bindings for GCC on Qualcomm MSM8916 platforms. This adds new clocks/clock-names properties to be used for clock links.
uses one line from a text file that's GPL v2.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
It's very likely that new bindings will be made by making a copy of other bindings, then make modifications. If my company copied bindings which are GPL v2, then we are required to honor the license of the prior binding and that means we legally aren't allowed to relicense under BSD AFAIK.
So copy some bindings which are dual-licensed... Since this is new work, you can do it.
Writing the binding is already done. It's hard to go back.
Is this dual license mandate documented someplace, because it seems like a massive trap.
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Also the documentation for the bindings here
Documentation/devicetree/
changesets.rstdynamic-resolution-notes.rstindex.rstkernel-api.rstof_unittest.rstoverlay-notes.rstusage-model.rstQuoted 1 line
all the rst files are GPL v2 and not dual license.
Quoted 7 lines
These are not bindings, so I do not understand your argument. What do you prove? That non-bindings do not have to use bindings rules? Yes, they are not bindings...
Anyway, I feel like we are making some useless circles and wasting quite a lot of energy on trivial rule. I tried to explain it, but if you do not like it - it's your choice. It will be a NAK.
I'm pointing out that your dual license mandate has problems. Another issue is you have dts files exclusively GPL v2, and the dt bindings have dts fragments which then have to be relicensed under BSD.
Are you as well going to nak our dts files? Or are those ok without bindings ?
Daniel
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 10 lines
Yes, I understand this. But also how corporations work should not really be my problem. Especially that many of them were able to relicense even existing work, not mentioning new work. New work is piece of cake comparing with army of lawyers for existing, released work! Yet they could...
Quoted 2 lines
What benefit does a BSD license hold for my employer over GPL v2 ?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
As BSD is permissive, it does not force the employer or its customer to release the derived works to customers. GPL requires it (simplifying now). The employer and its customer have now choice. Dual license gives more choices. More choices is beneficial for the company or its customers, isn't?
I don't think we derive value from this because Cisco only sells chips internally, not externally.
My answer was generic: dual license is beneficial for a company. Not
specific: dual license is beneficial for Cisco. It might be the case you do not have benefits from dual license, but you also do not loose anything.
Anyway, if SW release (for such chip) ever reaches external customer, then it matters. GPL compliance is for some lawyers huge pain and scary stuff, although should not be...
Quoted 40 lines
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 25 lines
Here the licenses currently used by the bindings,
1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only) 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause */ 1 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later) 3 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11) 4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later 4 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) 6 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0) 7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause) 7 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause 11 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ 12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause) 12 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) 33 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause) 47 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause 56 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause 102 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only 350 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause 511 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 610 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)Quoted 5 lines
1570 # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
Can you explain why so many are allowed to use GPL v2 , but my company is not allowed? Shouldn't these all be dual licensed if the project only allows dual license?
Quoted 6 lines
The rule is for new bindings. All new bindings are forced to follow this rule. Why do you think we treat Cisco special? Who else was allowed? Can we be specific?
Linking here existing bindings is not really an argument. What does it prove?
It shows the "rule" is not consistent. Sometime GPL v2 is ok, sometimes not.
Quoted 7 lines
Here's is the last GPL v2 only binding added,
commit
f9b8556d5799b612404e19b21dd7624d551f71dfAuthor: Johan Jonker <[email protected]> Date: Thu Dec 22 15:28:53 2022 +0100dt-bindings: usb: convert fcs,fusb302.txt to yaml
This is not a new binding. Read again the title.
Quoted 12 lines
Convert fcs,fusb302.txt to yaml.
Changed:
Add vbus-supply propertySigned-off-by Johan Jonker <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Rob Herring <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Quoted 3 lines
This was only a few months ago. It's a new yaml file with a new license line, made from an existing text file. I can see how maybe this uses parts of the GPL v2 txt files so you could not relicense to BSD.
It's not a new binding. The license was GPLv 2.0, so it would have to be relicensed with agreement of all copyright holders.
Quoted 12 lines
here's one less than a year ago,
commit
bdeb3cf013d0d1d09ff3bf66ba139ab259dab3a4Author: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]> Date: Mon Jul 4 20:24:48 2022 +0300dt-bindings: clock: separate bindings for MSM8916 GCC device
Separate bindings for GCC on Qualcomm MSM8916 platforms. This adds new clocks/clock-names properties to be used for clock links.
Quoted 8 lines
Reviewed-by Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Marijn Suijten <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>uses one line from a text file that's GPL v2.
It was probably based on old binding (from which it separated) which was GPL-2.0. As derivative work it had to be also GPL-2.0.
However that binding actually should be relicensed, because we have the right to do it for Qualcomm. Also mistakes happen, on submitters side and reviewers as well. Feel free to find all mistakes I did in review. There will be tons of them. Only the one who does not review, makes no mistakes.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
It's very likely that new bindings will be made by making a copy of other bindings, then make modifications. If my company copied bindings which are GPL v2, then we are required to honor the license of the prior binding and that means we legally aren't allowed to relicense under BSD AFAIK.
So copy some bindings which are dual-licensed... Since this is new work, you can do it.
Writing the binding is already done. It's hard to go back.
You can go back any time. Just "rm -fr" and write again. Since there is no other copyright holder than you (and/or your employer), you can do pretty much anything you wish with it.
Quoted 2 lines
Is this dual license mandate documented someplace,
Run checkpatch and do not send patches which fail.
Quoted 2 lines
because it seems like a
massive trap.
Trap? Of what? Srsly... I heard GPL is a trap, but never about dual or BSD license.
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Also the documentation for the bindings here
Documentation/devicetree/
changesets.rstdynamic-resolution-notes.rstindex.rstkernel-api.rstof_unittest.rstoverlay-notes.rstusage-model.rstQuoted 1 line
all the rst files are GPL v2 and not dual license.
These are not bindings, so I do not understand your argument. What do you prove? That non-bindings do not have to use bindings rules? Yes, they are not bindings...
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Anyway, I feel like we are making some useless circles and wasting quite a lot of energy on trivial rule. I tried to explain it, but if you do not like it - it's your choice. It will be a NAK.
I'm pointing out that your dual license mandate has problems. Another issue is you have dts files exclusively GPL v2,
It's not a problem... but even if it was, why do you not want to dual-license them as well?
Quoted 2 lines
and the dt bindings have dts fragments
which then have to be relicensed under BSD.
Point me to the DTS fragment in this patch. I could not find it.
Quoted 2 lines
Are you as well going to nak our dts files? Or are those ok without bindings ?
1. All compatibles must be documented, so if your DTS does not follow this rule I will NAK.
2. New platforms are supposed to have zero dtbs_check warnings, which is depending on above (1) plus enforces DT schema conversion.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 20 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Walker (danielwa)
Quoted 10 lines
Yes, I understand this. But also how corporations work should not really be my problem. Especially that many of them were able to relicense even existing work, not mentioning new work. New work is piece of cake comparing with army of lawyers for existing, released work! Yet they could...
Quoted 2 lines
What benefit does a BSD license hold for my employer over GPL v2 ?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
As BSD is permissive, it does not force the employer or its customer to release the derived works to customers. GPL requires it (simplifying now). The employer and its customer have now choice. Dual license gives more choices. More choices is beneficial for the company or its customers, isn't?
I don't think we derive value from this because Cisco only sells chips internally, not externally.
Quoted 7 lines
My answer was generic: dual license is beneficial for a company. Not
specific: dual license is beneficial for Cisco. It might be the case you do not have benefits from dual license, but you also do not loose anything.Anyway, if SW release (for such chip) ever reaches external customer, then it matters. GPL compliance is for some lawyers huge pain and scary stuff, although should not be...
GPL v2 has benefits in that the sources must be release. Cisco would lose that under a BSD license.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
It's very likely that new bindings will be made by making a copy of other bindings, then make modifications. If my company copied bindings which are GPL v2, then we are required to honor the license of the prior binding and that means we legally aren't allowed to relicense under BSD AFAIK.
So copy some bindings which are dual-licensed... Since this is new work, you can do it.
Writing the binding is already done. It's hard to go back.
Quoted 8 lines
You can go back any time. Just "rm -fr" and write again. Since there is no other copyright holder than you (and/or your employer), you can do pretty much anything you wish with it.
Quoted 2 lines
Is this dual license mandate documented someplace,
Run checkpatch and do not send patches which fail.
checkpatch actually contributes to the problem because it doesn't tell you not to use GPL v2 bindings as a base for new bindings prior to making the binding. It tells you after you already made the binding.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
because it seems like a
massive trap.Trap? Of what? Srsly... I heard GPL is a trap, but never about dual or BSD license.
It's a trap because people may use GPL v2 bindings as a basis for new bindings, then get told later to relicense (either by checkpatch or you), something that maybe difficult or not possible to do after the fact, or worse they relicense in violation of the GPL v2 license.
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Also the documentation for the bindings here
Documentation/devicetree/
changesets.rstdynamic-resolution-notes.rstindex.rstkernel-api.rstof_unittest.rstoverlay-notes.rstusage-model.rstQuoted 1 line
all the rst files are GPL v2 and not dual license.
These are not bindings, so I do not understand your argument. What do you prove? That non-bindings do not have to use bindings rules? Yes, they are not bindings...
Anyway, I feel like we are making some useless circles and wasting quite a lot of energy on trivial rule. I tried to explain it, but if you do not like it - it's your choice. It will be a NAK.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I'm pointing out that your dual license mandate has problems. Another issue is you have dts files exclusively GPL v2,
It's not a problem... but even if it was, why do you not want to dual-license them as well?
It's not my choice.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
and the dt bindings have dts fragments
which then have to be relicensed under BSD.Point me to the DTS fragment in this patch. I could not find it.
I'm saying generally many dts fragments are included inside the dt binding files as examples. So examples can't be relicensed unless it's coming from the original copyright holder.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Are you as well going to nak our dts files? Or are those ok without bindings ?
1. All compatibles must be documented, so if your DTS does not follow this rule I will NAK.
2. New platforms are supposed to have zerodtbs_checkwarnings, which is depending on above (1) plus enforces DT schema conversion.
So your response is yes, you will nak even dts files licensed correctly in order to enforce your dual licensing scheme on dt bindings.
It's kind of unbelievable that the Linux community rejects even correctly licensed device tree files.
Daniel
Rob Herring
maintainerQuoted 7 lines · Daniel Walker
Describe the compatible properties for the Cisco CrayAR SoC.
Cc Marcin Wierzbicki <[email protected]>Cc Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>Cc Rob Herring <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
checkpatch.pl complains that the author and Sob emails don't match.
Quoted 10 lines · Rob Herring
Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Walker
Describe the compatible properties for the Cisco CrayAR SoC.
Cc Marcin Wierzbicki <[email protected]>Cc Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>Cc Rob Herring <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Daniel Walker <[email protected]>checkpatch.pl complains that the author and Sob emails don't match.
I'll address it , assuming I send another series.
Daniel