On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 02:25, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 06:19:00PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 03:17:27PM +0000, Ed Maste wrote:
> > > These two files (i915_live_selftests.h, i915_mock_selftests.h) were
> > > introduced in commit 953c7f82eb89 ("drm/i915: Provide a hook for
> > > selftests") and are effectively just a list of selftests.
> > >
> > > The selftest implementation itself is largely in i915_selftest.c, and
> > > uses a MIT license. Graphics drivers are shared with other operating
> > > systems and have long used a permissive license (or dual license) to
> > > facilitate this.
> > >
> > > The two selftest list files carried no license when introduced in
> > > 953c7f82eb89, presumably as they were considered trivial. Notably the
> > > general selftest header i915_selftest.h (which does have non-trivial
> > > content) also has an MIT license.
> > >
> > > The GPL-2.0 SPDX tag in these two files came from b24413180f56, where
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman added the tag to all files that had no license. This
> > > makes sense in general, but it is clear from the context of the original
> > > selftest commit here that these files are a trivial part of an otherwise
> > > MIT-licensed patch to a MIT-licensed component, and should have an MIT
> > > license.
>
> No, that is not clear, by default, anything without a license gets the
> GPL2 license as that is the license of the entire body of code.
I mean the intent is clear from looking at the original patch in 953c7f82eb89:
- drivers/gpu/drm/i915 is generally MIT licensed
- 953c7f82eb89 added these two trivial files with no license text
- that patch also added nontrivial new files with an MIT license
The same sort of issue affected drm/radeon, fixed in b7019ac550eb:
drm/radeon: fix incorrrect SPDX-License-Identifiers
radeon is MIT. This were incorrectly changed in
commit b24413180f56 ("License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license
identifier to files with no license")
and
commit d198b34f3855 (".gitignore: add SPDX License Identifier")
and:
commit ec8f24b7faaf ("treewide: Add SPDX license identifier -
Makefile/Kconfig")
Fixes: d198b34f3855 (".gitignore: add SPDX License Identifier")
Fixes: ec8f24b7faaf ("treewide: Add SPDX license identifier -
Makefile/Kconfig")
Fixes: b24413180f56 ("License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license
identifier to files with no license")
Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2053
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
and drm/noveau, fixed in b7019ac550eb:
drm/nouveau: fix bogus GPL-2 license header
The bulk SPDX addition made all these files into GPL-2.0 licensed files.
However the remainder of the project is MIT-licensed, these files
(primarily header files) were simply missing the boiler plate and got
caught up in the global update.
Fixes: b24413180f5 (License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license
identifier to files with no license)
Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Karol Herbst <kherbst@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Chris, do you confirm your intention of MIT and not GPL for these files?
> >
> > Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Greg, is this acceptable?
>
> You need to get a signed-off-by from everyone who has touched these
> files, which is not what you have done here :(
Most of the contributions to these files were done by 13 Intel
employees. Presumably a signed-off-by from someone at Intel is
sufficient for all of them? I've CC'd other contributors to these two
files for a signed-off-by.
