From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:47:31 +0100 From: Roland Hieber Message-ID: <20200227094731.vmlunmba7qucc7lw@pengutronix.de> References: <20200219104229.12924-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> <93a36c4f-0070-8e2c-1947-b64479cd1b5e@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <93a36c4f-0070-8e2c-1947-b64479cd1b5e@pengutronix.de> Subject: Re: [ptxdist] [PATCH v3] tf-a: new package for ARM trusted firmware A List-Id: PTXdist Development Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: ptxdist@pengutronix.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ptxdist-bounces@pengutronix.de Sender: "ptxdist" To: Ahmad Fatoum Cc: Alejandro Vazquez , ptxdist@pengutronix.de, Philipp Zabel On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:44:18AM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Philipp, > > On 2/25/20 10:20 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote: > >> + Enter the TF-A git commitsh you want to build. Usally a tagged release > > ^ ^ > > Some missing vowels here. Also, the git documentation uses spells it > > "commit-ish" [1], but in most places it just says "commit". > > Will fix it. It is usually a tag, that's why I don't want it to say > "Enter the git commit". > > > What about the other licenses listed in docs/licenses.rst, such as NCSA, > > and Zlib? Does any of this code make it into the TF-A binary? > > hm. they are all compatible with BSD-3-Clause if only distributing: > BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause AND NCSA AND Zlib > > 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. 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. - Roland -- Roland Hieber, Pengutronix e.K. | r.hieber@pengutronix.de | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de