[alsa-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] ucm-conf: Add intel UCM conf files to alsa-ucm-conf repo

[Jaroslav Kysela]

Dne 12.4.2017 v 16:57 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:50:57 +0200,
> Liam Girdwood wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 16:54 +0800, fuweix.tang at intel.com wrote:
>>> From: Fuwei Tang <fuweix.tang at intel.com>
>>>
>>> Add the intel UCM configs to a dedicated UCM conf repo and release them using
>>> the BSD license.
>>
>> We are still missing the LICENSE/COPYING file. We need to add it the top
>> directory level so it's clear to users. 
>>
>>> The other non intel UCM files can be moved over when there is agreement with the
>>> file authors, but in the mean time they will stay in alsa-lib.
>>> The configs are moved from alsa-lib repo. The original authorship and commit
>>> message of all config files will be reserved.
>>>
>>
>> Takashi, how do you want to manage the move ? We could add the files to
>> the new repo first and then only delete them in alsa-lib after the next
>> alsa-lib release ? This would give time for distros to pick up the new
>> conf package. I'm easy on whatever works best here.
> 
> We really need a consensus before dealing with such patches.
> It's just a copy / move of some files to another repo, so a patch is
> just a waste of bandwidth.
> 
> If the only question is about the license, why can't we put another
> license to UCM profiles in the repo, while keeping LGPL for others as
> is?  You can declare it in README or maybe better in another text file
> to explaining about the licenses in the repository.
> 
> I'm asking it because, possibly, UCM syntax may be extended in future,
> and then there is mismatch with UCM profile and parser.  By providing
> in a single repo, at least, we can avoid the mismatch in the source
> level.
> 
> Other than that, I myself have no objection to factor out to another
> repo.  But, as previously mentioned, it's rather a request to
> Jaroslav, who maintains the repositories in alsa-project.org.

I'm ready to do anything we settle. There's another option - keep ucm
config files in alsa-lib and publish/mirror them also in the separate
repository (assuming that there are other frameworks which may use them
- like on android). And I agree with the point that the UCM files may
have different licence than other files in alsa-lib, because they are
not a direct part of the executable binary.

					Jaroslav

-- 
Jaroslav Kysela <perex at perex.cz>
Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.