I believe this driver is extremely useful, and I see possible issues with the fact that the driver is GPL Only. This driver is critical for devices that lack a proper DRM driver, and locking it into GPL Only could lead to issues with porting the system over to platforms like FreeBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc. Is there any chance the code placed in the "drivers/gpu/drm/simpledrm" folder be placed under a more permissive license setup. I would suggest using MIT[1], BSD 2-Clause[2], or BSD 3-clause[3]. Also as a quick note it is possible to enable this under a dual-license setup with GPLv2/BSD-3 Clause. An example a dual licensed driver is the Intel iwlwifi driver ( see: drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-8000.c )
[1]https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html [2]https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause [3]https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 02:50:37PM -0500, Ken Phillis Jr wrote:
I believe this driver is extremely useful, and I see possible issues with the fact that the driver is GPL Only. This driver is critical for devices that lack a proper DRM driver, and locking it into GPL Only could lead to issues with porting the system over to platforms like FreeBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc. Is there any chance the code placed in the "drivers/gpu/drm/simpledrm" folder be placed under a more permissive license setup. I would suggest using MIT[1], BSD 2-Clause[2], or BSD 3-clause[3]. Also as a quick note it is possible to enable this under a dual-license setup with GPLv2/BSD-3 Clause. An example a dual licensed driver is the Intel iwlwifi driver ( see: drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-8000.c )
tbh, most if not all arm drivers are gpl only, and due to code sharing and refactoring I'd say a lot of that has leaked all over drm. IANAL and all that, but personally I believe that the entire idea of drm being MIT is walking on ever thinner ice. And personally I'm not going to extend effort to slow this down or prevent it outright, since I think all that code sharing with arm folks is extremely beneficial for everyone. At least here on Linux. -Daniel
[1]https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html [2]https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause [3]https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Hi
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 02:50:37PM -0500, Ken Phillis Jr wrote:
I believe this driver is extremely useful, and I see possible issues with the fact that the driver is GPL Only. This driver is critical for devices that lack a proper DRM driver, and locking it into GPL Only could lead to issues with porting the system over to platforms like FreeBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc. Is there any chance the code placed in the "drivers/gpu/drm/simpledrm" folder be placed under a more permissive license setup. I would suggest using MIT[1], BSD 2-Clause[2], or BSD 3-clause[3]. Also as a quick note it is possible to enable this under a dual-license setup with GPLv2/BSD-3 Clause. An example a dual licensed driver is the Intel iwlwifi driver ( see: drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-8000.c )
tbh, most if not all arm drivers are gpl only, and due to code sharing and refactoring I'd say a lot of that has leaked all over drm. IANAL and all that, but personally I believe that the entire idea of drm being MIT is walking on ever thinner ice. And personally I'm not going to extend effort to slow this down or prevent it outright, since I think all that code sharing with arm folks is extremely beneficial for everyone. At least here on Linux. -Daniel
On top of that: Feel free to copy SimpleDRM in any way possible. Consider my original implementation public domain.
Thanks David
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
tbh, most if not all arm drivers are gpl only, and due to code sharing and refactoring I'd say a lot of that has leaked all over drm. IANAL and all that, but personally I believe that the entire idea of drm being MIT is walking on ever thinner ice. And personally I'm not going to extend effort to slow this down or prevent it outright, since I think all that code sharing with arm folks is extremely beneficial for everyone. At least here on Linux. -Daniel
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
I generally do not have a issue with GPLv2 license. I believe that most developers are under the impression that for a driver (and code) to get mainlined into the Linux kernel requires the code to be placed under GPLv2 only. This is just a generalized check to make sure that there is no problem placing this code under a more permissive license.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:07 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrmann@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On top of that: Feel free to copy SimpleDRM in any way possible. Consider my original implementation public domain.
Thanks David
Thank you for the quick response, and I'll make a note of this.
On Thu, 04 Aug 2016, David Herrmann dh.herrmann@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 02:50:37PM -0500, Ken Phillis Jr wrote:
I believe this driver is extremely useful, and I see possible issues with the fact that the driver is GPL Only. This driver is critical for devices that lack a proper DRM driver, and locking it into GPL Only could lead to issues with porting the system over to platforms like FreeBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc. Is there any chance the code placed in the "drivers/gpu/drm/simpledrm" folder be placed under a more permissive license setup. I would suggest using MIT[1], BSD 2-Clause[2], or BSD 3-clause[3]. Also as a quick note it is possible to enable this under a dual-license setup with GPLv2/BSD-3 Clause. An example a dual licensed driver is the Intel iwlwifi driver ( see: drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-8000.c )
tbh, most if not all arm drivers are gpl only, and due to code sharing and refactoring I'd say a lot of that has leaked all over drm. IANAL and all that, but personally I believe that the entire idea of drm being MIT is walking on ever thinner ice. And personally I'm not going to extend effort to slow this down or prevent it outright, since I think all that code sharing with arm folks is extremely beneficial for everyone. At least here on Linux. -Daniel
On top of that: Feel free to copy SimpleDRM in any way possible. Consider my original implementation public domain.
N.b. the improvements by others on top of that, at least once included in the kernel tree, will not be public domain. IANAL etc.
BR, Jani.
Thanks David _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Daniel Vetter -
David Herrmann -
Jani Nikula -
Ken Phillis Jr