hald/linux/acpi.[ch] dual-license?

[Phi Tran]

Danny Kukawka wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 29. März 2007, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
> 
>>Richard, David, Danny,
>>
>>We're in the process of adding ACPI/battery support to the Solaris HAL
>>backend, and found that borrowing code from acpi.c could give us the most
>>consistent behavior with Linux. Two key differences:
>>
>>1) we get info from the driver, not /proc, i.e.
>>hal_util_set_*_elem_from_file() become ioctl();
>>2) we do this in addon, not hald, i.e. hal_*() become libhal_*();
> 
> 
> This mean you want to move stuff from acpi.c/h to libhal or do you only mean 
> the functions to set keys?

Our version will be running as part of an addon/prober so the functions
to set keys uses libhal_* instead of hal_*().  This is needed since we
want to do open/ioctl from outside hald.  In solaris, we don't have
the same /proc directories as mentioned above.

> 
> 
>>But assuming the underlying hardware is the same, those little bits of your
>>experience with ACPI "peculiarities" on various systems incorporated in
>>acpi.c could be useful to us.
>>
>>The problem is that acpi.[ch] are under GPL, as opposed to common HAL code
>>which is GPL+AFL. Our addon-acpi is under AFL, so we cannot link them
>>together. I wonder if it would be possible to also dual-license these two
>>files?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this imply for the leagal/license side. Are both licenses 
> compatible (IMO there are several differences)? What are the advantages of 
> AFL against GPL and why do we need to licenses in HAL?

Hald is already both dual license AFL/GPL except for acpi.[ch].  AFL and
GPL are generally viewed as not compatible.  I'm not a lawyer so for
the differences, you'll have to consult the licenses.  AFL is generally
viewed as less viral then GPL which is the main reason we chose AFL.

Phi

> 
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> hal mailing list
> hal at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal
>