[PATCH 1/2 v1.03] Add support for DWC OTG HCD function.

[Feng Kan]

Hi Greg:

We have obtained GPL 2 only header from Synopsis. We have also identified all
parties that contributed to the code base and contacted them regarding
license change.
Any party that we could not reach, we will remove the patch from the submission.
Let me know if this is sufficient for resubmission.

Thanks
Feng

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Greg KH <gregkh at suse.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 07:02:44PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Greg KH <gregkh at suse.de> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote:
>> >> Hi Greg:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Greg KH <gregkh at suse.de> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:14:59PM -0700, Feng Kan wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Greg:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We will change to a BSD 3 clause license header. Our legal counsel is
>> >> >> talking to Synopsis to make this change.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why BSD? ??You do realize what that means when combined within the body
>> >> > of the kernel, right?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> FKAN: We will shoot for a dual BSD/GPL license such as the one in the HP
>> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??Hil driver.
>> >
>> > What specific driver is this?
>>
>> FKAN: this is driver/input/serio/hil_mlc.c and quite a number of others.
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
> Are you _sure_ that you didn't take any existing GPL code and put it
> into this driver when making it?  Did all contributors to the code
> release their contributions under both licenses?
>
>> > And are you sure that all of the contributors to the code agree with
>> > this licensing change? ??Are you going to require contributors to
>> > dual-license their changes?
>> >
>> > If so, why keep it BSD, what does that get you?
>>
>> FKAN: for one thing, to make it future proof on other submissions.
>
> What do you mean by this?  What can you do with this code other than use
> it on a Linux system?  You can't put it into any other operating system
> with a different license, can you?
>
>> >> > Are you going to be expecting others to contribute back to the code
>> >> > under this license, or will you accept the fact that future
>> >> > contributions from the community will cause the license to change?
>> >
>> >
>> > You didn't answer this question, which is a very important one before I
>> > can accept this driver.
>>
>> FKAN: Yes, all of the above. Our legal is working on that. I thought by default
>>            GPL defines the above statement.
>
> The GPL does, but as you are trying to dual-license the code, you have
> to be careful about how you accept changes, and under what license.
> It's a lot more work than I think you realize.  What process do you have
> in place to handle this?
>
>> >> >> We will resubmit once this is in place. Please let me know if you have
>> >> >> any additional concerns.
>> >> >
>> >> > My main concern is that you, and everyone else involved in the driver,
>> >> > never considered the license of the code in the first place and expected
>> >> > the kernel community to accept it as-is, placing the problem on us.
>> >>
>> >> FKAN: Please don't think this is the case, we gone through this exercise
>> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? with Denx.
>> >
>> > What is "Denx"?
>>
>> FKAN: U-Boot Denx.de
>
> Ah, thanks.
>
>> >> We had legal looking into the header before submission
>> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? to them and the kernel.
>> >
>> > Then what happened here? ??Just curious as to how the driver was public
>> > for so long before someone realized this.
>> >
>>
>> FKAN:  this was few years back. At the time we had the header changed
>>            so it was BSD like to be accepted by Denx.
>>
>> >> > What will be done in the future to prevent this from happening again?
>> >>
>> >> FKAN: agreed, once bitten .... :)
>> >
>> > That didn't answer the question :)
>>
>> FKAN: we have a system of checks for every patch that goes out. I will send
>>            out a guideline to all reviewer to make sure the header
>> follow kernel precedence.
>
> But you took this code from a different vendor, are you able to properly
> identify the code contributions to this base and what license it is
> under and where they got it from?
>
>>            Legal is quite aware of the issue now too.
>
> As they should be :)
>
> Please reconsider the dual licensing unless you really are ready to
> handle the implications of it.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>