Grant Likely wrote:
On 9/3/07, Jerry Van Baren vanbargw@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Grant,
The libfdt custodian repo is on the denx.de site, but should be the same as the mainline. I would say patch your 5xxx custodian repo, publishing the new functions that impact the libfdt stuff as a separate patch and The List can discuss them. I'll "ack" them and apply them to my repo as well, but NBD. I will plan on updating the 83xx implementation(s) and publish them for Kim to ack/adopt as well.
Ah, okay. I was more wondering if there was a libfdt repo that was upstream and separate from u-boot (as dtc uses libfdt also). Okay, I'll rebase against wd's mainline and repost ASAP.
Cheers, g.
Ahh, now I see what you were asking. When I ported libfdt to u-boot, I ended up forking it because the official libfdt did not have all the functionality we needed and, at the time, David Gibson was not taking patches. He was working on setting up a dual-licensing for libfdt and did not want changes before the lawyers were happy with the licensing.
David has since slain the licensing dragon, but we have not unforked libfdt.
To unfork, we have a couple of issues to work out. One is the amount of effort to undo the divergence (probably not bad). The other is the dual-licensing issue: David added a BSD license. Most of the new code is from me, but some is from others (Wolfgang G.) and some of it was shamelessly stolen from linux's FDT support (not LIBFDT). In order to unfork, we would have to have agreement from the authors of the additional code to relicense with the dual license... or maybe Jon and David have independently written equivalent routines (quite possible).
Best regards, gvb