Formal license ambiguity in arch/arm/boot/dts/sun?i-a*.dts

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:51:16 Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 02:35:18PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > So I guess like Chen-Yu suggested that we should change the license of
> > > the DTSI first, and then the DTS. Otherwise, it wouldn't work very
> > > well, I guess you can't really relicense a GPL-only file.
> > 
> > IANAL, but mixing MIT (which I suggest use as the other license) and GPL
> > files in one binary (the generated dtb file) is fine AFAIK, this happens
> > all the time. The resulting binary is simple GPL licensed. So it would
> > make sense to start with dual licensing new boards right away even before
> > the dtsi has been relicensed. It won't make any practical difference
> > until the dtsi is relicensed, but it means less work later on.
> 
> So you're allowed to licence derivative work of a GPL-licenced file
> under both the GPL and another licence?
> 
> And as far as MIT vs BSD is concerned, I don't really have an
> opinion. Arnd? Russell?

libfdt uses BSD license, which would be a reason to use the same for
the dts files. Other than that, I don't think it matters either way.

	Arnd