At 09:34 AM 10/25/99 +0200, David Bucciarelli wrote:
>FAZEKAS Miklos wrote:
>> What is the license is valid on the CVS tree?
>
>There should be a file in the Mesa/docs directory with a list of Mesa
>sub-systems (Mesa core, demos, FX driver, etc.) and the kind of license
>used for each sub-system.
>
>> Particulary the FX driver?
>
>The FX driver is under Gnu Library GPL.
>
>> The fxrender.c file for example, still contains the GNU license header.
>
>I'm not actively working to the driver any more so I don't know the
>status of the latest sources, however (at least from a formal point of
>view) all the FX driver sources must includes the GNU license header. It
>is required by the GPL. If someone has included a patch or a file with
>another kind of license, she/he is violating GPL license of the driver
>(from a _formal_ point of view) and the copyright of the authors.
>
>I have discussed with Brian the problem of the FX driver license some
>time ago (at the time of the Mesa license shift). We both agree to not
>change the license because:
>
>1) Only the Mesa core was going to be included in XFree so a FX Driver
>license shift wasn't required;
>
>2) I like the GPL;
>
>3) Many other people have sent me patches, bug fixes, ecc. under this
>license;
>
>Today (Miklos, is your request related to the PI's problem ?), I have
>received an email from Frank LaMonica (PrecisionInsight) asking for a
>license shift. Frank asks me to shift the FX driver from GPL to an
>XFree86's BSD style license (I think in order to include a dirver for
>the Voodoo3 in the next XFree release).
>
>I would like to left the driver under GPL because IMHO is a very good
>solution for software developed in spare time and by several people.
>However, I guess the FX driver license is becoming an obstacle for the
>XFree Voodoo3 driver so I'm ready to change the license if it is really
>required.
>
>BTW, I'm not sure if I have the right to change the FX driver license
>(it includes the code written by other people).
If the code submitted to you is not insignificant (technically it must be an
original work of authorship, mere submissions of punctuation changes and the
like would not count) then it constitutes a derived work in it's own right and
as such it must, in accordance with the license under which you provided your
work, be GPLed. At this point (before you integrate the work of others which
are original works of authorship) you are the only person with a copyright on
your original work and as such you may release it under a different copyright.
Your original copyright had no termination clause and so you cannot cancel the
old license but you can release the exact same work under a different license.
However, once you include other peoples work that is significant enough to
constitute a derived work then when you reintegrate their work back into yours
then your new work becomes derivative of both your original work and their
derivative of your original work. Now your are not the sole owner of the
copyright on the new work and as such you must secure the permission of both
yourself and the copyright holder of the derived work if you wish to use a new
license on your new work. If there have been many significant contributions to
your work then any individual contributor can veto your proposed license
changes.
There are in the law criterion for deciding if a work is a work in it's own
right and therefore derivative, but in the end the only way to decide is to go
to court.
I do not wish to create a flame war here. So I will say it this way. If you
believe that authors of works like yours or mesa should be able to take the
work they created and the changes submitted to them and make license changes in
them such as you wish to do then you have uncovered a major flaw in the GPL and
a good reason not to use it. If on the other hand you believe that an author
who creates a major work and accepts changes that may be significant but are
small in comparison, both in size and hours of time invested, should be able to
prevent the original author from relicensing his work then you have yet again
more propaganda for the brilliance of the GPL. I personally suspect that
there are a lot more people out there that contribute but don't create major
works themselves and thus they see this as a benefit in the GPL and not as a
failing.
Finally, if in the future, you wish to avoid this problem then you can decide
to accept back contributions only if the contributor a) affirms that he/she is
the sole author of the contribution and b) either donates the copyright to you
or grants you a unrestricted (including the right to redistribute) license to
the contribution.
>BTW2, where can I read the XFree86's BSD license ? I have only a raw
>idea of what it is.
http://www.xfree86.org/licence.html
>BTW3, I would like to read the opinions of others FX driver developer
>about this problem.
I am not an FX driver developer, but this same issue was pretty well hashed out
on the mesa lists as regards mesa, so a quick scan of the archives would
probably give you the same set of reactions.
>> Is it a bug or the FX driver is only under GPL license?
>
>Yes, it is under GPL.
>
>David Bucciarelli
--------
Christopher R. Bowman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ChrisBowman.com/
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
