[Intel-xe] [PATCH] fixup! drm/xe: Introduce a new DRM driver for Intel GPUs

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 05:09:47PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 08:32:23AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 03:15:48PM +0000, Francois Dugast wrote:
> > > From: "Dugast, Francois" <francois.dugast at intel.com>
> > > 
> > > The driver contains code under GPL v2 license and code under MIT license.
> > 
> > that is the wrong reason for dual license
> > 
> > > 
> > > Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html
> > > Cc: Oded Gabbay <ogabbay at kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dugast, Francois <francois.dugast at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c
> > > index 6860586ce7f8..ae37c229a0b7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c
> > > @@ -79,4 +79,4 @@ module_exit(xe_exit);
> > > MODULE_AUTHOR("Intel Corporation");
> > > 
> > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION(DRIVER_DESC);
> > > -MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
> > > +MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
> > 
> > The module itself is GPL, like i915:
> > 
> > $ git grep MODULE_LICENSE -- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c:MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_module.c:MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
> > 
> > GPL can include source files licensed as MIT, but the final license of
> > the module is still GPL, not dual license. Same thing as from the link
> > you provided...
> > 
> > 	The license described in the COPYING file applies to the kernel
> > 	source as a whole, though individual source files can have a
> > 	different license which is required to be compatible with the
> > 	GPL-2.0
> > 
> > ... but applied to the module rather than the whole kernel.
> > 
> > The inverse is not true. You can't license the whole (module) as MIT
> > since it also contains GPL-licensed files. We could if all the files were
> > dual-licensed, which is not the case. Since several parts of xe is based
> > on i915, it'd be a very grey area and license tracking nightmare.
> > 
> > With that, the disclaimer IANAL applies.
> 
> Yeap, but according "Documentation/process/license-rules.rst"
> they are absolutely the same.
> 
> "GPL and additional rights"
> or
> "Dual MIT/GPL"
> 
> with the ask to not use the first one on new code but prefer the
> second one.
> 
> So,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>

so, we need to make this change one way or another.

The question that would remain is if we need to completely change and
really identify the whole driver as GPLv2 only, and with that I believe
that we shouldn't.

1. I might be wrong, but it looks to me that if you put the whole driver
as GPLv2, then the individual files as MIT wouldn't matter anymore and
folks who nowadays get i915 and use as MIT but stripping the GPL files,
wouldn't be able to do this any longer with Xe.

2. Having the full identification of the driver as GPLv2 only it would
spread to various new files and that would get back to the point that
we would be blocking the adoption for the cases I mentioned in the
previous bullet.

> 
> > 
> > Lucas De Marchi
> > 
> > > -- 
> > > 2.34.1
> > >