Licence for RPi .pc files ?

[Tom Gundersen]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Hi Pekka,

Sorry to say I didn't yet manage to find time for this. I expect to
have some more time next week, and will cc this list once I post
something (unless someone else beat me to it ;-) ).

Cheers,

Tom