On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 5 May 2013 22:06:49 +0200 > Tom Gundersen <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
