[Bug 92582] New: gma500 driver: License Confusion?

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92582

            Bug ID: 92582
           Summary: gma500 driver: License Confusion?
           Product: DRI
           Version: DRI git
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux (All)
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: medium
         Component: DRM/Intel
          Assignee: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
          Reporter: kphillisjr at gmail.com
        QA Contact: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
                CC: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org

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:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/tc35876x-dsi-lvds.c

Example File that is strictly GPLv2 licensed:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/backlight.c


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.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx-bugs/attachments/20151021/e2bfbf46/attachment.html>