Hi Daniel, On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:03:33 +0100 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). > > 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 First of all thanks for sending this mail. I'm of course not speaking for the whole FreeBSD project but being one of the persons that is currently trying to finish a clean update of DRM for it to finally have DRM drivers for arm/arm64 here is my view : I would love to have all the helper MIT or dual licence so I don't need to comment part of DRM code (which is ok on some part but wrong on most) or re-implement them. There is already too much code that really need a rewrite for FreeBSD (dma-bufs, syncobjs and a lot of others linux kernel subsystems) that adding drm helpers to the list makes it really hard for me. From the list you've send here are the most problematic files for me, for now I've simply not import them and hack around the code that calls functions from them : drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client.c It's now really tied into the drm subsystem so it's hard to ignore it, for now not merging the latest patches from 5.4 makes it ok-ish to ignore it. drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c I can hack around it but I would prefer to include it and stop my hacks. drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c a lot of helpers are here and needed, for now I'm using the old functions that were MIT licenced but it's kinda wrong to do it this way. For the gem_cma/gem_framebuffer/gem_etc ... we have our own implementation when we need one, those file are too close to the vm subsystem to be portable anyway so I don't really care if they stay GPLed. For the rest of the files either I don't want them (_sysfs and _of for example) because it don't make sense for us to have them (sysfs) or the subsystem is too different between FreeBSD-Linux (of) or I the current drivers that we have don't need them for now (writeback, hdcp etc ...) To finish this mail, I'd like to say that I would love to contribute to DRM and some drivers (lima/panfrost mostly) but for now I need to keep in sync with Linux and finish my work so I can commit it into the FreeBSD kernel. Knowing that future updates will be easier for me because of a licence issue would be great to know otherwise I think that all the available time that I have for DRM on FreeBSD will be 100% rewritting compatibility layers. Cheers, -- Emmanuel Vadot <manu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
