DRM radeon i2c support and GPL

Adam Jackson ajax at nwnk.net
Tue Sep 21 08:44:39 PDT 2004

On Tuesday 21 September 2004 10:24, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:38:15 -0400, Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> wrote:
> > I would read it as "since the code never forked, we're still BSD".
> >
> > Inclusion is not conversion, in this case.  All the copyright statements
> > in the DRM source (excluding your recent commit) specify BSD licenses. 
> > If the bug-fixers wanted their changes to apply under the GPL they should
> > have indicated that by changing the copyright statement at the top of the
> > file.
> >
> > The aggregate kernel is GPL, yes, but that doesn't mean all the
> > components are.  ppp_deflate.c has gotten fixes from kernel people too,
> > but it's still BSD-licensed.
> I've never understood why the aggregate X (which includes some non MIT
> licensed code) can't have multiple licenses.  The linux kernel does;
> other projects do.  as long as it's properly labled in the code.
> People use X on linux.  people run gnome on BSD. technically X and BSD
> have slightly different licenes too.

I don't see why it can't either, besides that we've never formally stated that 
that's okay.  If you're not going to link the GPL-licensed bits with a 
non-GPL kernel, then having GPL bits in the tree isn't a big deal.

My strong preference is to minimize GPL code in the tree, for the usual 
contamination reasons.  But either way, we need a formally stated policy.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20040921/e729b936/attachment.pgp>

More information about the xorg mailing list