On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:38:15 -0400, Adam Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 20 September 2004 12:59, Jon Smirl wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:29:30 -0400, Adam Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > License compatibility != OS compatibility, please don't conflate the two. > > > X runs on more than just Linux, and source is distributed as an > > > aggregate. If > > > > The Linux DRM driver does not run anywhere but on Linux. The GPL code > > is isolated to the Linux DRM driver. > > > > I wonder if DRM isn't GPL already by accident. DRM has been included > > in the Linux kernel under the GPL license. DRM has also accepted many > > bug patches back from the kernel people. If a fork had occurred > > between kernel and DRM it would be clear than one fork is GPL and one > > BSD. But the code never forked. Since there is only one code base and > > that code base has been released GPL via the kernel, so we may have > > inadvertently made DRM GPL. > > 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. Alex > > > I'd feel a whole lot better about the licensing if BSD and Linux DRM > > were split into two repositories. > > That still wouldn't address the issue of inclusion in Xorg, unless Xorg were > to only ship with the BSD DRM. And it would probably demote the BSD OSes to > fifth-class citizen status. Can't say as I'm a fan of that idea. > > > > it's really that big of a deal, ask the author of the GPL code to allow > > > you to add it to DRM under an X-friendly license. > > > > This is a waste of time. I know that some of the authors have a GPL or > > die attitude towards device driver code. > > Reimplementing code that the original author doesn't want to relicense is > nothing new under the sun (freeglut). I believe that splintering the code > base into universal and GPL versions is a bad idea, because it means any code > in the GPL version that someone wants to use in the universal version has to > be written twice - inevitably diverging the two trees and creating the sort > of cross-merge hell we're trying to get away from. > > If we're going to "waste time" like this, we might as well do it once, up > front, and be done with it. > > - ajax > > > > _______________________________________________ > xorg mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
