[PATCH] drm/i915: Update license on selftest lists to MIT

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 10:10:54AM -0500, Ed Maste wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 02:25, Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> 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 at amd.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher at amd.com>
> 
> 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 at alum.mit.edu>
>     Acked-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
>     Acked-by: Karol Herbst <kherbst at redhat.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com>
> 
> > > Chris, do you confirm your intention of MIT and not GPL for these files?
> > >
> > > Cc: Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
> > >
> > > 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.

Yes, if you get a signed-off-by from a lawyer at Intel, that should
cover their contributions, but you also need it for the other
contributors as well.

Good luck!

greg k-h