On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
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
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@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
