I think for this one we can only hope that the original author agrees to a re-licensing. Otherwise it is only possible to add a replacement.
On 04/08/2020 20:34, Niteesh G. S. wrote: > ping. > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:11 PM Niteesh G. S. <niteesh...@gmail.com > <mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 1:37 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org > <mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:16 PM Niteesh G. S. > <niteesh...@gmail.com <mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hello, > > In a recent review of these patches > https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-July/060653.html > Gedare mentioned that we cannot use these patches with the > current license. More details regarding the conversation can be > found in the following archive. > https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-July/061000.html > > The following files have been ported to RTEMS to implement > the OFW API. > 1) openfirm.h -- BSD-4 License > 2) openfirm.c -- BSD-4 License > 3) ofw_fdt.c -- BSD-2 License > > The files with BSD4 cannot be used and Gedare suggested to > check if we can remove the entire 4-clause cluster or remove > clauses #3 and #4. I checked this along with the help of > Christian > and it seems that we can't remove those. Christian suggested > that we can use the header file with the BSD-4 license to some > extent but the source files to pose a problem. We also checked > OpenBSD it has the same licensing. > > > NetBSD appears to be the origin of the code and although I believe > they did a largely blanket change from BSD-4, this code is old and > normally, I would doubt they found the original submitter. Which > would be odd in this case because this is his website with email: > > https://solfrank.net/Wolfgang/ > > I have privately emailed to politely ask him to relicense it to > BSD-2 > for use in RTEMS. And try to do that in a way that gets it on a > path > to get changed upstream. > > Hopefully this will solve it. > > > Thanks for doing this Joel :). > > > > So we have come up with the following suggestions > 1) Use the header files as it is. > > > How close are you to being able to merge? Do we have time to let > him answer? > > > Yes, we do have a lot of time. All of my patches are based on the > new build > system so we won't be able to merge until the build system is > merged. And > also there are other things that have to be discussed regarding the > patch. > > > > 2) Most OF_* functions defined in openfirm.c have 1:1 mapping > with the FDT implementation in ofw_fdt.c so there is a > possibility > to remove openfirm.c and only use openfirm.h and ofw_fdt.c. > For those functions which don't have a 1:1 mapping, we can add > an implementation in ofw_fdt.c. And remove the functions which > don't have an FDT based implementation eg. OF_write, OF_open > etc. > > Also please remember that these patches were created with a goal > to import the OFW into RTEMS and remove them from libBSD so > will using the above approach has a chance of breaking libBSD > compatibility in the future? > > > Yikes. That would mean having to create our own files that are > compatible but don't have the license issue. > > And that our implementation is in a source transparent form that > allows updates easily from the upstream source. > > If we can't get relicense permission, I think we have to rewrite the > BSD-4 code and provide compatible versions. :( > > > As of now, this seems to be the only option but let's hope for someone > to come up with a better approach or get the license relaxed. > > Thanks, > Niteesh > > > > Thanks, > Niteesh. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel