Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757302AbbEVKGF (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 06:06:05 -0400 Received: from ou.quest-ce.net ([195.154.187.82]:49993 "EHLO ou.quest-ce.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757146AbbEVKF7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 06:05:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1432289148.5304.58.camel@opteya.com> From: Yann Droneaud To: Rob Herring Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , licensing@fsf.org Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 12:05:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1430820315.19516.26.camel@opteya.com> Organization: OPTEYA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.2.1 (3.16.2.1-1.fc22) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 92.90.26.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ydroneaud@opteya.com Subject: Re: Device Tree Blob (DTB) licence X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on ou.quest-ce.net) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2542 Lines: 76 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 Compiler (dtc) are covered by GNU General Public Licence v2 > > (GPLv2), but cannot find any reference. > > By default yes, but we've been steering people to dual license them > GPL/BSD. > Can you give me the rationale behind such dual licenses requirement ? If a BSD .dts includes GPLv2 .h, the whole is covered by GPLv2, so I cannot find a case where a BSD covered .dts file could be used alone within BSD license rights. > > As most .dtsi in arch/arm/boot/dts/ are covered by GPLv2, and, > > as most .h in include/dt-bindings/ are also covered by GPLv2, > > the source code is likely covered by GPLv2. > > > > Then this source code is translated in a different language > > (flattened > > device tree), so the resulting translation is also likely covered > > by > > GPLv2. > > > > So, when I'm proposed to download a .dtb file from a random vendor, > > can I require to get the associated source code ? > > I believe so yes. However, you already have the "source" for the most > part. Just run "dtc -I dtb -O dts ". You loose the > preprocessing and include structure though (not necessarily a bad > thing IMO). > > Then the question is what is the license on that generated dts! > That's also a good question. Is this a form a "reverse engineering" with all the legalese burden ? Anyway without a clear information attached to the DTB, it's difficult to tell which licence cover the "decompiled" version. > > Anyway, for a .dtb file generated from kernel sources, it's rather > > painful to look after all .dts, .dtsi, .h, to find what kind of > > licences are applicables, as some are covered by BSD, dual licensed > > (any combination of X11, MIT, BSD, GPLv2). > > 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 by default. Regards. -- Yann Droneaud OPTEYA -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/