Licence for RPi .pc files ?

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 22:06:49 +0200
Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:

> Hi Pekka,
> 
> I'm trying to make Weston work nicely on Raspberry Pi under ArchLinux
> ARM, and was pointed to Collabora's pkg-config files [0] from the
> Wayland wiki [1]. I couldn't find any licencing information, so I
> thought I'd ask you as you are the author of most of the commits:
> 
> What is the licence of the files, and would you be ok with them being
> included upstream (I suppose [2]), or is there a reason they are kept
> separate? I'd be happy to submit them if the licence allows it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tom
> 
> [0]: <http://cgit.collabora.com/git/user/pq/android-pc-files.git/tree/pkgconfig?h=raspberrypi>
> [1]: <http://wayland.freedesktop.org/raspberrypi.html>
> [2]: <https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware>

Hi Tom,

we have intended to submit those files upstream for quite some time,
but somehow there has always been something better to do. Therefore I
would be very glad to see them submitted upstream!

As for the licence, I never included one, since I didn't think they
would count as copyrightable work, being so tiny and obvious. The
information there has been gathered from public resources, mainly the
rpi firmware.git examples.

Please, consider the three files in [0] (the raspberrypi branch) as
public domain. I'm also ok, if you or upstream wants to put them under
a BSD-like licence.

However, you should check, that the files are correct, especially all
the flags. You probably want to change the description strings (since in
upstream they are not fake anymore), and probably the version numbers.
Maybe ask the upstream, what version numbers they want to use.

I chose the version numbers simply to fill the requirements in Weston's
configure, which assumes Mesa version numbers. That will probably
become a problem, since rpi upstream is not Mesa, but still provides
e.g. egl.pc, and Weston should accept both with provider specific
version checks. I do not know how to solve that nicely.

Maybe this issue should be raised with Mesa. I don't know if anyone
else provides an egl.pc, but to me it seems that everyone should
provide an egl.pc with the *EGL* version number, and then provide an
additional .pc file for the implementor's version, say, mesa.pc.

And now that there is the new Linux OpenGL ABI proposal in the works,
that might be a good place to see it defined.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-April/038440.html

Therefore, I assume you will be changing the files enough, that they
become your work, if anyone's. :-)


Thanks,
pq