Re: [PATCH v4 28/33] tools/libxl: Check if fdt_{first, next}_subnode are present in libfdt

[Julien Grall <julien.grall.oss@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 31/03/15 14:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:46 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> On 31/03/15 12:35, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 19:29 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>>> The functions fdt_{fisrt,next}_subnode may not be available because:
>>>
>>> "first"
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_fdt.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_fdt.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..f88e9f1
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_fdt.c
>>>
>>> Since this is effectively shims for missing libfdt functionality how
>>> about libxl_libfdt_compat.c or some such?
>>
>> I will rename the file.
>>
>>> If wee wanted any fdt specific helpers as part of libxl itself then
>>> those would want to use the libxl_fdt.c name.
>>>
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * libfdt - Flat Device Tree manipulation
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2006 David Gibson, IBM Corporation.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * libfdt is dual licensed: you can use it either under the terms of
>>>> + * the GPL, or the BSD license, at your option.
>>>
>>> Since this is libxl, which should be LGPL I think we must therefore be
>>> taking the BSD option. Perhaps we should make that clear? I'm not sure.
>>
>> After speaking with Ian J. I will:
>> 	- Drop the GPL license from the header as we use the BSD one
>> 	- Add the libxl header license
>> 	- Specify in the commit message why we chose the BSD license.
> 
> One downside to dropping the GPL bit is that any fixes which we get to
> this code cannot then easily be upstreamed.
> 
> TBH I think it would be find to include both the GPL and BSD and to
> include a comment that within the context of libxl we have chosen BSD
> and so the overall license of the work remains LGPL. Ian may disagree
> though.

Ian J., is it fine for you?

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall