On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 12:29:35PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > Upstream Linux maintainers prefer/require clear BSD-compatible > license, see e.g.: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/4/707
I would be a little more careful with such statements, that seems like a wrong generalization to me concerning license preferences of Linux maintainers. The link says "ARM SoC maintainers", not "Linux maintainers" in general. And I wouldn't be surprised if the request came from developers getting their paycheck from Google or Google affiliates. It's no secret that Google (management?) does not like the GPL. They already wrote a BSD licensed replacement for the GPL licensed bluetooth stack "BlueZ" called "BlueDroid". And they even started developing a whole new kernel from the scratch called "Fuchsia". (Why might Google management steer towards BSD licenses? To lock things down as soon as it gets en par with its GPL counterparts, to be able to sell exclusive features again, if you ask me. Interesting read here: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ ) PS: Don't get me wrong, this is no opinion concerning the license of DTS files or a religious statement concerning "the right license" (there are plenty of cases where BSD-like licenses are an excellent choice - and maybe DTS files is one of them ;) ). My nitpicking is just about this one sentence :-). _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
