using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Pankaj Bansal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 857 bytes --]

Hi All,

I have a query about include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h and include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h files.
I would like to use these header files in NON-GPL (X11 Licensed) dts/dtsi files, to use the macros defined in these header files in our dts/dtsi files.

  1.  Does including the GPL header files for macros (NON executable code) in NON-GPL files, causes the license of NON-GPL file to be contaminated with GPL code?


If that is the case:

  1.  Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these files in our dts/dtsi files?

I was not able to find the copyright owner of these files from files itself, so I have included all the developers who have contributed to these files in *TO* list.

Regards,
Pankaj Bansal


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6531 bytes --]

RE: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Pankaj Bansal]

Hi All,

I have a query about include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h and include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h files.
I would like to use these header files in NON-GPL (X11 Licensed) dts/dtsi files, to use the macros defined in these header files in our dts/dtsi files.
1. Does including the GPL header files for macros (NON executable code) in NON-GPL files, causes the license of NON-GPL file to be contaminated with GPL code?

If that is the case:
2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these files in our dts/dtsi files?

I was not able to find the copyright owner of these files from files itself, so I have included all the developers who have contributed to these files in *TO* list.

Regards,
Pankaj Bansal

Re: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:48:28AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I have a query about include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h and include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h files.
> I would like to use these header files in NON-GPL (X11 Licensed) dts/dtsi files, to use the macros defined in these header files in our dts/dtsi files.
> 
>   1.  Does including the GPL header files for macros (NON executable code) in NON-GPL files, causes the license of NON-GPL file to be contaminated with GPL code?

Why are you asking developers legal questions?  Would you ask us medical
questions as well?  :)

Seriously, go talk to your corporate lawyers, they know the answers to
this, it's not very complex.

thanks,

greg k-h

RE: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Pankaj Bansal]

Hi Greg,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 1:59 PM
> To: Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@nxp.com>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>; Mark Rutland
> <mark.rutland@arm.com>; Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>; Geert
> Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>; open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND
> FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>; Varun Sethi
> <V.Sethi@nxp.com>; Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>; Leo Li
> <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files
> 
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:48:28AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have a query about include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h and
> include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h files.
> > I would like to use these header files in NON-GPL (X11 Licensed) dts/dtsi files,
> to use the macros defined in these header files in our dts/dtsi files.
> >
> >   1.  Does including the GPL header files for macros (NON executable code) in
> NON-GPL files, causes the license of NON-GPL file to be contaminated with GPL
> code?
> 
> Why are you asking developers legal questions?  Would you ask us medical
> questions as well?  :)
> 
> Seriously, go talk to your corporate lawyers, they know the answers to this, it's
> not very complex.

My apologies. I will clear this question with our legal team.
Meanwhile, can you (or copyright owner of irq.h, arm-gic.h (don't know who)) answer my second question?

2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these files in our dts/dtsi files?

If some non-copyleft license can be added to these files, then I can happily use these files in our dts/dtsi

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Re: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:18:02AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
> 2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files
> to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these
> files in our dts/dtsi files?

You are going to have to deal with the legal departments of the
companies that own those copyrights.  Again, talk to your legal
department about how that would even work, or if they even wish for you
to be asking people and companies to do that.

good luck!

greg k-h

Re: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Li Yang]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:35 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:18:02AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
> > 2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files
> > to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these
> > files in our dts/dtsi files?
>
> You are going to have to deal with the legal departments of the
> companies that own those copyrights.  Again, talk to your legal
> department about how that would even work, or if they even wish for you
> to be asking people and companies to do that.

Right, we should work with the author/contributor of these two files.

Hi Stephen and Geert,

Are you ok with relicensing these two files with (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)?
Given that many dts files in arm/arm64 are dual licensed with GPL and
MIT/X11/BSD, it makes more sense that these header files are dual
licensed with a permissive license too.

Regards,
Leo

RE: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Stephen Warren]

Li Yang wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:10 PM:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:35 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:18:02AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
> > > 2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files
> > > to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these
> > > files in our dts/dtsi files?
> >
> > You are going to have to deal with the legal departments of the
> > companies that own those copyrights.  Again, talk to your legal
> > department about how that would even work, or if they even wish for you
> > to be asking people and companies to do that.
> 
> Right, we should work with the author/contributor of these two files.
> 
> Hi Stephen and Geert,
> 
> Are you ok with relicensing these two files with (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)?
> Given that many dts files in arm/arm64 are dual licensed with GPL and
> MIT/X11/BSD, it makes more sense that these header files are dual
> licensed with a permissive license too.

FWIW, I have filed an internal bug to our IP audit team to see what they
think. I cannot predict the answer or timeline for an answer.

-- 
nvpublic

RE: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Stephen Warren]

Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:40 PM:
> Li Yang wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:10 PM:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:35 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:18:02AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
> > > > 2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files
> > > > to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these
> > > > files in our dts/dtsi files?
> > >
> > > You are going to have to deal with the legal departments of the
> > > companies that own those copyrights.  Again, talk to your legal
> > > department about how that would even work, or if they even wish for you
> > > to be asking people and companies to do that.
> >
> > Right, we should work with the author/contributor of these two files.
> >
> > Hi Stephen and Geert,
> >
> > Are you ok with relicensing these two files with (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)?
> > Given that many dts files in arm/arm64 are dual licensed with GPL and
> > MIT/X11/BSD, it makes more sense that these header files are dual
> > licensed with a permissive license too.
> 
> FWIW, I have filed an internal bug to our IP audit team to see what they
> think. I cannot predict the answer or timeline for an answer.

It turns out I got a very quick answer from our legal department. The
joy of filing a bug right before their scheduled meeting! We're fine
either:

a) Sending the files direct to you with an MIT license (we'd send a copy
of the last version only touched by me, un less Geert also ack's the
license change).

b) Sending a patch to convert these files to just MIT (preferable), or
perhaps dual GPLv2/MIT if that's what the kernel maintainers want.

Let me know which option works best for you.

That said, have you thought about all the other files you'll likely
need; those two IRQ related files are unlikely to be the only files that
are useful. Don't you want/need to relicense "everything" in include/dt/
and arch/*/boot/dts/?

-- 
nvpublic

Re: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Li Yang]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:40 PM Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:40 PM:
> > Li Yang wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:10 PM:
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:35 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:18:02AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
> > > > > 2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files
> > > > > to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these
> > > > > files in our dts/dtsi files?
> > > >
> > > > You are going to have to deal with the legal departments of the
> > > > companies that own those copyrights.  Again, talk to your legal
> > > > department about how that would even work, or if they even wish for you
> > > > to be asking people and companies to do that.
> > >
> > > Right, we should work with the author/contributor of these two files.
> > >
> > > Hi Stephen and Geert,
> > >
> > > Are you ok with relicensing these two files with (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)?
> > > Given that many dts files in arm/arm64 are dual licensed with GPL and
> > > MIT/X11/BSD, it makes more sense that these header files are dual
> > > licensed with a permissive license too.
> >
> > FWIW, I have filed an internal bug to our IP audit team to see what they
> > think. I cannot predict the answer or timeline for an answer.
>
> It turns out I got a very quick answer from our legal department. The
> joy of filing a bug right before their scheduled meeting! We're fine
> either:
>
> a) Sending the files direct to you with an MIT license (we'd send a copy
> of the last version only touched by me, un less Geert also ack's the
> license change).
>
> b) Sending a patch to convert these files to just MIT (preferable), or
> perhaps dual GPLv2/MIT if that's what the kernel maintainers want.

I think b) is better as it can also benefit others who also use dual
license in dts files.

>
> Let me know which option works best for you.
>
> That said, have you thought about all the other files you'll likely
> need; those two IRQ related files are unlikely to be the only files that
> are useful. Don't you want/need to relicense "everything" in include/dt/
> and arch/*/boot/dts/?

There are only a few header files in include/dt-bindings/ suppose to
be generic.  The irq related ones are the only files we used.  Maybe
it will be helpful to have the generic headers dual licensed too.  But
I think the license used for the arch/*/boot/dts/ files should be
decided by the hardware vendor/copyright holders themselves.

Regards,
Leo

Re: using interrupt controller dt-bindings macros in Non GPL dts files

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:39 PM Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> wrote:
> Stephen Warren wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:40 PM:
> > Li Yang wrote at Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:10 PM:
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:35 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:18:02AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
> > > > > 2. Would it be possible for the copyright owners of these header files
> > > > > to make these files dual licensed, so that we are able to use these
> > > > > files in our dts/dtsi files?
> > > >
> > > > You are going to have to deal with the legal departments of the
> > > > companies that own those copyrights.  Again, talk to your legal
> > > > department about how that would even work, or if they even wish for you
> > > > to be asking people and companies to do that.
> > >
> > > Right, we should work with the author/contributor of these two files.
> > >
> > > Hi Stephen and Geert,
> > >
> > > Are you ok with relicensing these two files with (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)?
> > > Given that many dts files in arm/arm64 are dual licensed with GPL and
> > > MIT/X11/BSD, it makes more sense that these header files are dual
> > > licensed with a permissive license too.
> >
> > FWIW, I have filed an internal bug to our IP audit team to see what they
> > think. I cannot predict the answer or timeline for an answer.
>
> It turns out I got a very quick answer from our legal department. The
> joy of filing a bug right before their scheduled meeting! We're fine
> either:
>
> a) Sending the files direct to you with an MIT license (we'd send a copy
> of the last version only touched by me, un less Geert also ack's the
> license change).
>
> b) Sending a patch to convert these files to just MIT (preferable), or
> perhaps dual GPLv2/MIT if that's what the kernel maintainers want.
>
> Let me know which option works best for you.

I think option b) makes most sense, to fix this for good.

I have no objections. I don't think my spelling fixes in commit
d6613aa750ad66b2 ("ARM: dt: GIC: Spelling s/specific/specifier/,
s/flaggs/flags/")
are copyrightable anyway ;-)

> That said, have you thought about all the other files you'll likely
> need; those two IRQ related files are unlikely to be the only files that
> are useful. Don't you want/need to relicense "everything" in include/dt/
> and arch/*/boot/dts/?

+1

Originally, the files were introduced without a license, thus defaulting to
GPL v2, and this was made "official" in Greg's commit b24413180f5600bc
("License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with
no license").

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds