Re: [edk2-platforms: PATCH v2 03/10] Marvell/Cn9130Db: Add DeviceTree

["Marcin Wojtas" <mw@semihalf.com>]

Hi Leif, Laszlo

śr., 21 sie 2019 o 11:11 Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> napisał(a):
>
> On 08/19/19 19:14, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > +Stewards (don't panic!)
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:03:42PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
> >> Hi Leif,
> >>
> >> pt., 16 sie 2019 o 19:10 Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:54:07AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
> >>>> This patch adds device tree sources which are common for Cn913x SoCs
> >>>> and the CN9130 development board (variant A). Wiring up of support
> >>>> will be done in the follow-up commits.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>
> >>>
> >>> Again, I've not reviewed the contents extensively, *but* this patch
> >>> cannot go into edk2-platforms - it has GPL licensed content.
> >>> Was it meant for edk2-non-osi? Because we could take it there.
> >>
> >> Thanks for catching this - my oversight. The top-level DT files should
> >> also be dual licenced (GPL2.0/MIT), same as recently submitted to
> >> Linux. So IMO no need to go for edk2-non-osi.
> >
> > Right. MIT *is* an acceptable license, but no other licenses than
> > BSD+Patent are blanket approved - it's a case by case basis.
> >
> > We still have a gap with regards to the explicit patent grant since
> > the dropping of the TianoCore Contribution Agreement. While this is
> > less problematic for something like .dts files, I don't think it can
> > be argued that the problem does not exist for them.
> >
> > My preference for resolving this would be that anything merged into
> > !edk2-non-osi (and, yes, we really ought to create an
> > edk2-other-license or whatever) needs to use a license compatible with
> > BSD+Patent (MIT is) and is registered as:
> >
> > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent AND <other license>
> >
> > TL;DR: if you want to get the set merged quickly, edk2-non-osi is the
> > best route for these files.
>
> no particular comments from me; what Leif suggests looks fine to me
> (from orbit anyway)
>

Ok, fair enough - since I cannot re-send with contribution agreement
any more, I have to use edk2-non-osi path.

Best regards,
Marcin