Licence for RPi .pc files ?

[Tom Gundersen]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 for the pointers Pekka, I'll look into this to get it upstream asap.

Cheers,

Tom