On 11/07/14 22:22, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 06:56:12PM +0000, Bridgman, John wrote:
From: Jerome Glisse [mailto:j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 2:52 PM
To: Bridgman, John
Cc: Oded Gabbay; David Airlie; Deucher, Alexander; linux-
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Lewycky, Andrew;
Joerg Roedel; Gabbay, Oded; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki; Kishon
Vijay Abraham I; Sandeep Nair; Kenneth Heitke; Srinivas Pandruvada;
Santosh Shilimkar; Andreas Noever; Lucas Stach; Philipp Zabel
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/83] hsa/radeon: Add code base of hsa driver for
AMD's GPUs
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 06:46:30PM +0000, Bridgman, John wrote:
From: Jerome Glisse [mailto:j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 2:11 PM
To: Bridgman, John
Cc: Oded Gabbay; David Airlie; Deucher, Alexander; linux-
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Lewycky,
Andrew; Joerg Roedel; Gabbay, Oded; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J.
Wysocki; Kishon Vijay Abraham I; Sandeep Nair; Kenneth Heitke;
Srinivas Pandruvada; Santosh Shilimkar; Andreas Noever; Lucas Stach;
Philipp Zabel
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/83] hsa/radeon: Add code base of hsa driver
for AMD's GPUs
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 06:02:39PM +0000, Bridgman, John wrote:
From: Jerome Glisse [mailto:j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Oded Gabbay
Cc: David Airlie; Deucher, Alexander;
linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
dri- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bridgman, John; Lewycky, Andrew;
Joerg Roedel; Gabbay, Oded; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki;
Kishon Vijay Abraham I; Sandeep Nair; Kenneth Heitke; Srinivas
Pandruvada; Santosh Shilimkar; Andreas Noever; Lucas Stach;
Philipp Zabel
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/83] hsa/radeon: Add code base of hsa driver
for AMD's GPUs
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50:09AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
This patch adds the code base of the hsa driver for AMD's GPUs.
This driver is called kfd.
This initial version supports the first HSA chip, Kaveri.
This driver is located in a new directory structure under drivers/gpu.
Signed-off-by: Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@xxxxxxx>
There is too coding style issues. While we have been lax on the
enforcing the scripts/checkpatch.pl rules i think there is a limit
to that. I am not strict on the 80chars per line but others things
needs fixing
so we stay inline.
Also i am a bit worried about the license, given top comment in
each of the files i am not sure this is GPL2 compatible. I would
need to ask lawyer to review that.
Hi Jerome,
Which line in the license are you concerned about ? In theory we're
using
the same license as the initial code pushes for radeon, and I just
did a side-by side compare with the license header on cik.c in the
radeon tree and confirmed that the two licenses are identical.
The cik.c header has an additional "Authors:" line which the kfd
files do
not, but AFAIK that is not part of the license text proper.
You can not claim GPL if you want to use this license. radeon is
weird best for historical reasons as we wanted to share code with BSD
thus it is dual licensed and this is reflected with :
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
inside radeon_drv.c
So if you want to have MODULE_LICENSE(GPL) then you should have
header that use the GPL license wording and no wording from BSD like
license.
Otherwise change the MODULE_LICENSE and it would also be good to say
dual licensed at top of each files (or least next to each license) so
that it is clear this is BSD & GPL license.
Got it. Missed that we had a different MODULE_LICENSE.
Since the goal is license compatibility with radeon so we can update the
interface and move code between the drivers in future I guess my
preference would be to update MODULE_LICENSE in the kfd code to "GPL and
additional rights", do you think that would be OK ?
I am not a lawyer and nothing that i said should be considered as legal advice
(on the contrary ;)) I think you need to be more clear with each license to
clear says GPLv2 or BSD ie dual licensed but the dual license is a beast you
would definitly want to talk to lawyer about.
Yeah, dual license seems horrid in its implications for developers so we've always tried to avoid it. GPL hurts us for porting to other OSes so the X11 / "GPL with additional rights" combo seemed like the ideal solution and we made it somewhat of a corporate standard. Hope that doesn't come back to haunt us.
Meditate on this I will. Thanks !
Just to be explicit, my point is that is you claim GPL in MODULE_LICENSE
then this is a GPL licensed code, if you claim GPL with additional rights
than this is dual licensed code. This is how i read and interpret this
with additional rights. In all the case the radeon code is considered
dual license ie GPL+BSD (at least this is how i consider that code).
Cheers,
Jérôme
Changed it to "GPL and additional rights" in v2 of the patchset
Oded
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
