<html>
    <head>
      <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" />
    </head>
    <body><table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
        <tr>
          <th>Bug ID</th>
          <td><a class="bz_bug_link 
          bz_status_NEW "
   title="NEW - gma500 driver: License Confusion?"
   href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92582">92582</a>
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Summary</th>
          <td>gma500 driver: License Confusion?
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Product</th>
          <td>DRI
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Version</th>
          <td>DRI git
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Hardware</th>
          <td>All
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>OS</th>
          <td>Linux (All)
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Status</th>
          <td>NEW
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Severity</th>
          <td>enhancement
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Priority</th>
          <td>medium
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Component</th>
          <td>DRM/Intel
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Assignee</th>
          <td>intel-gfx-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Reporter</th>
          <td>kphillisjr@gmail.com
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>QA Contact</th>
          <td>intel-gfx-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>CC</th>
          <td>intel-gfx-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
          </td>
        </tr></table>
      <p>
        <div>
        <pre>I was looking over the various DRM Drivers and noticed that this driver
(GMA500) is a max of GPLv2 only and GPL With additional rights. This makes
things a little bit confusing when porting drivers over to other platforms.

Example file with a more liberal License:
<a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/tc35876x-dsi-lvds.c">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/tc35876x-dsi-lvds.c</a>

Example File that is strictly GPLv2 licensed:
<a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/backlight.c">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/backlight.c</a>


I'm wondering if the licensing of this code could be made more liberal and
documentation be provided on why this should be done... The main reason is to
avoid re-inventing the wheel when getting DRM kernel modules over to other
platforms where it is harder to include GPLv2 code in drivers.


Also as a quick note, there is several drivers to compare with that make it
easier to see that it is a strongly desired trait for desktop drivers. These
are the AMDGPU, AMDKFD, AST, i810, i915, Nouveu, R128, Radeon, TDFX, VIA, VGEM,
 etc.</pre>
        </div>
      </p>
      <hr>
      <span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
      
      <ul>
          <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
          <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
          <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
      </ul>
    </body>
</html>