On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:03 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Dave and me chatted about this last week on irc. Essentially we have: > > $ git grep SPDX.*GPL -- ':(glob)drivers/gpu/drm/*c' > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_damage_helper.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_cec.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid_load.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_cma_helper.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_cma_helper.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: > GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_framebuffer_helper.c:// > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_ttm_helper.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: > GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_vram_helper.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: > GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_hdcp.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dbi.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_of.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_simple_kms_helper.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: > GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_sysfs.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vma_manager.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vram_helper_common.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: > GPL-2.0-or-later > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c:// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > One is GPL+MIT, so ok, and one is a default GPL-only header from > Greg's infamous patch (so could probably be changed to MIT license > header). I only looked at .c sources, since headers are worse wrt > having questionable default headers. So about 18 files with clear GPL > licenses thus far in drm core/helpers. > > Looking at where that code came from, it is mostly from GPL-only > drivers (we have a lot of those nowadays), so seems legit non-MIT > licensed. Question is now what do we do: > > - Nothing, which means GPL will slowly encroach on drm core/helpers, > which is roughly the same as ... > > - Throw in the towel on MIT drm core officially. Same as above, except > lets just make it official. > > - Try to counter this, which means at least a) relicensing a bunch of > stuff b) rewriting a bunch of stuff c) making sure that's ok with > everyone, there's a lot of GPL-by-default for the kernel (that's how > we got most of the above code through merged drivers I think). I > suspect that whomever cares will need to put in the work to make this > happen (since it will need a pile of active resistance at least). > I'd like to try and keep as much MIT as possible. I'd be willing to help with the re-licensing effort. Alex > Cc maintainers/driver teams who might care most about this. > > Also if people could cc *bsd, they probably care and I don't know best > contacts for graphics stuff (or anything else really at all). > > Cheers, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
