On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 07:11:22PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > DRM is a special case here since there has always been work to share > > bits of the code with other operating systems, the licensing for DRM is > > very unusual within the kernel. A quick sampling of drivers suggests > > that this license is not universally used there either. > > There is also the issue I raised with the fact that your non-GPL license > > statement does not appear to correspond to the MODULE_LICENSE() that > > you've included which claims the code is GPLed. > Once again this is exactly what the other drm drivers and support > modules do. AMD generally prefers to contribute code licensed under > an MIT/X11 style licence which is why we've done this. IANAL, but I > think that is compatible with "GPL and additional rights". This is not a DRM driver, it is an ASoC driver, and like I say DRM is a bit special. I do note that AMD has contributed at least its CCP and cpufreq drivers (indeed all their non-DRM code I could find with explicit license statements) under a normal kernel license. As far as I can tell this licensing is entirely confined to the DRM drivers. I am not readily able to convince myself that this is compatible with the intent of exporting the ASoC APIs _GPL(), this looks like it can be used as the basis for a shim layer for non-GPL code (the licensing strategy seems very similar). I'd need to think through this carefully.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
