Dave Airlie airlied at gmail.com
Wed Oct 10 19:50:07 PDT 2012

>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
>> > Robert Morell <rmorell at nvidia.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> >> issue, and not really an interface".  The dma-buf infrastructure is
>> >> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
>> >> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL instead.
>> >
>> > NAK. This needs at the very least the approval of all rights holders for
>> > the files concerned and all code exposed by this change.
>> I think he has that. Maybe he just needs to list them.
> My understanding it that he doesn't, as the dmabuf interface exposes not only
> the code written by this driver's author, but other parts of the Kernel.
> Even if someone consider just the dmabuf driver, I participated and actively
> contributed, together with other open source developers, during the 3 days
> discussions that happened at Linaro's forum where most of dmabuf design was
> decided, and participated, reviewed, gave suggestions approved the code, etc
> via email. So, even not writing the dmabuf stuff myself, I consider myself as
> one of the intelectual authors of the solution.
> Also, as dmabuf will also expose media interfaces, my understaning is
> that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
> (possible) change. I am one of the main contributors there. Alan also has
> copyrights there, and at other parts of the Linux Kernel, including the driver's
> core, from where all Linux Kernel drivers are derivative work, including this one.
> As Alan well said, many other core Linux Kernel authors very likely share
> this point of view.
> So, developers implicitly or explicitly copied in this thread that might be
> considering the usage of dmabuf on proprietary drivers should consider
> this email as a formal notification of my viewpoint: e. g. that I consider
> any attempt of using DMABUF or media core/drivers together with proprietary
> Kernelspace code as a possible GPL infringement.

Though that does beg the question why you care about this patch :-)


More information about the dri-devel mailing list