Licence for RPi .pc files ?

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:29:24 +0200
Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:

> 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.

Hi Tom,

is there somewhere I could follow the progress on this?


Thanks,
pq