Ilija, Your suggestion is very very important for us. Before we released the driver, we will check each file of what we used from linux community(Including KMS and DDX driver). As you said, there is no guarantee that some patches from other developers contain GPL's code. So we must be very careful on this. The good thing is that DRM architecture and DDX driver including Xserver part(our code also use Xserver) are MIT-licensed. So what we should be care is when those drivers call into kernel functions, we must use freebsd's code to re-implement. We are all not lawyers, actually evey for lawyers, it is impossible for them to check the code in detail. So I have the responsibility to make sure the code from me is non-GPL. So I will also ask more questions here for this stuff. Hope you guys give more suggestions, I appreciate it! Thanks, Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: dri-devel-bounces+frankr.huang=amd.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:dri-devel-bounces+frankr.huang=amd.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Ilija Hadzic > Sent: 2011?10?13? 22:29 > To: Huang, FrankR > Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Reply: Question on S3 on evergreen > > > Frank, > > I have found this text particularly useful when it comes to using MIT (or > BSD) code that resides in the GPL project (e.g. DRM in Linux) > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl- > collaboration.html > > I think that sections 2.2 and 2.3 are the things to be careful about > because there is a non-trivial probabilty that at least some out of many > patches that come in from many authors were created by copying and pasting > lines of code that may have come from some other GPL'd code (e.g. other > parts of Linux). Nobody can guarantee that this has not happened. > > P.S. The above is my personal opinion, I speak for myself, not for my > company, I am not a lawyer. > > -- Ilija > > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Huang, FrankR wrote: > > > Xav, thanks for your reminder. Actually our law leam has already checked > the license. As Dave said, the DRM kernel driver is all MIT-licensed and > we will be free to use them. When the drm uses linux kernel function calls, > we will use freebsd(none-GPL) equivalent to replace. > > Dave, by the way, I want to ask you about some exceptions in DRM. you > know in some files(i.e. drm_fb_helper.c), it includes MODULE_LICENSE("GPL > and additional rights"). Does it mean it is GPL licensed? Is it free to > use this file? > > > > Thanks, > > Frank > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Xavier Bestel [mailto:xavier.bestel@xxxxxxx] > > Sent: 2011-10-13 (ÐÇÆÚËÄ) 20:07 > > To: Dave Airlie > > Cc: Huang, FrankR; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: Question on S3 on evergreen > > > > On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 13:04 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@xxxxxxx> > wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 17:54 +0800, Huang, FrankR wrote: > >>>> [...] I have ported radeon_suspend_kms() and radeon_resume_kms() > >>>> functions from linux to CE. > >>> > >>> I imagine you already have checked with your company's lawyers, but if > I > >>> understand correctly that means your drivers will be distributed under > >>> the GPL ? > >> > >> All the GPU driver code is licensed under MIT. > > > > Oh, I thought "linux" meant "kernel", not "X11". > > > > Xav > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
