| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |
| Who | What | When |
|---|---|---|
| *** | ChanServ sets mode: +v mchehab | [04:05] |
| ............................................................................................................. (idle for 9h1mn) | ||
| ChanServ sets mode: +v mchehab | [13:06] | |
| ............ (idle for 59mn) | ||
| mchehab | syoung: could you please test if BPF is working on this build? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31510087
I'm doing normal builds for F29 and rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31510167 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31510190 | [14:05] |
| ................. (idle for 1h24mn) | ||
| hverkuil: I think I wait for the next merging cycle for the DMA change... there are still some discussions about the patchset
probably it is safer to wait for a while before merging it | [15:33] | |
| pinchartl | mchehab: thanks for the documentation licensing explanation
mchehab: what's the DMA change ? | [15:34] |
| mchehab | just merged v4.20-rc7
Patchwork: http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/53477/ | [15:35] |
| pinchartl | ah that one | [15:35] |
| mchehab | Christoph Hellwig made some comments after the pull request
(last email about that was on Fri) sailus: Just updated the text at:https://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_How_to_submit_patches#License_on_documentation_files as you pointed, the licencing text there were GPL2+, where the text were mentioning just GPL 2 I corrected the test to be just GPL 2 (of course, GPL2+ would equally work - but the minimum requirement for uAPI is dual licensed GPL2 or GFDL pinchartl: thnks for mentioning about licensing... I forgot to do this change on Friday :-) | [15:36] |
| pinchartl | you're welcome :-)
is the GPL 2.0(+) recommendation for everything other than uAPI a kernel-wide recommendation, or is it specific to media ? | [15:41] |
| mchehab | pinchartl: it is kernel-wide
(not sure if documented or not) it is related to include stuff from Kernel headers into documentation | [15:46] |
| pinchartl | do you know why GPL is preferred over GFDL ? | [15:48] |
| mchehab | they're not compatible
if you include something from a GPL code into a GFDL, you may have troubles | [15:48] |
| pinchartl | what would you include ? | [15:50] |
| mchehab | (not sure if defining GFDL without invariant sections would change that)
.. kernel-doc | [15:50] |
| pinchartl | I mean, assuming a new (L)GPL-based project, is GFDL a bad pick for documentation ? | [15:50] |
| mchehab | I guess so | [15:50] |
| pinchartl | the kernel-doc comments could be licensed under the GFDL though | [15:51] |
| mchehab | on a new project, I would likely go throug a CC for documentation (using one that it is GPL compatible) | [15:51] |
| pinchartl | (I know they are not, I mean from a theoretical point of view) | [15:51] |
| mchehab | anyway, IANAL... better to ask it to someone with legal knowledge if you have doubts | [15:52] |
| pinchartl | sure. I was just wondering | [15:52] |
| mchehab | I guess I would just dual-license GPL and CC sharealike on newer projects | [15:54] |
| sailus: btw, that wrong GPL 2+ cut-and-paste text at wiki were also present on some docs I wrote that I made dual licensed
just submitted a fix | [16:01] | |
| ....................................... (idle for 3h14mn) | ||
| @all: I should submit a PR for 4.21 early this week
Linus is asking for such early submission so, if are there anything that still deserves 4.21, please let me know asap (I'll likely do it tomorrow) | [19:15] | |
| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |