[PATCH 00/27] ARM: mvebu: armada-*: Relicense the device tree under GPLv2+/X11

[Jason Cooper]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 03:36:13PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> On 18/12/2014 20:15, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 06:15:40PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > ...
> >> Jason at the end it seems you didn't ack or nack the patches were you
> >> were CC. You expressed some concerns about the GPLv2+ move but I don't know
> >> if it is something that prevents you to give your acked-by.
> > 
> > Oops.  :)  I figured my S-o-B when applying would be sufficient.  That
> > decision was before we decided on Andrew applying patches this time
> > around...
> > 
> > For all my dts{i} contributions:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason at lakedaemon.net>
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
> > 
> > Due to all the merge commits over time and whatnot, it's probably best
> > to put my Ack on all the patches in this series...
> 
> OK no problem. By the way, I take care of collecting all the acked-by and
> once it will be done I will either sent the updated patch set with all the
> acked-by or maybe just I will create a branch to pull if it is easier to handle.

Ok, that'll be up to Andrew.

Once we have the last few stragglers, and assuming there are no more
NAKs, here's what I'd like to do:

Regrettably, we'll have to revert Simon's dts contributions.  I say
'regret' in that I regret having to potentially discourage a valuable
contributor.  I *don't* regret him sticking to his guns.  :)

As for what to do after that, I think we (the core mvebu folks) should
*not* rewrite the Lacie dts files.  That just seems hinky to me.

If there's community interest, someone will crop up who copies one of
the dual licensed dts files and modifies it to boot his/her Lacie board.
When they submit a patch, we'll DCO/SoB double check them and apply the
patch(es).


thx,

Jason.