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

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel