[PATCH] drm.h: Handle DragonFly like Linux

2016-05-17 Thread Ed Maste 
On 17 May 2016 at 01:26, Francois Tigeot  wrote:
>
> FreeBSD and NetBSD even have two different drm.h kernel headers. For some
> reason they think it is a good idea to keep a separate drm implementation
> from ~= 10 years ago or so.

No, we (FreeBSD) don't think it's a good idea. It's an unfortunate
situation that we've ended up in, and is going to take some effort to
clean up, but is not a desired long-term state.

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

2024-12-08 Thread Ed Maste 
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.

Signed-off-by: Ed Maste 
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_live_selftests.h | 2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_mock_selftests.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_live_selftests.h 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_live_selftests.h
index 5aee6c9a8295..264b951c4f77 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_live_selftests.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_live_selftests.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
 
 #ifndef selftest
 #define selftest(x, y)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_mock_selftests.h 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_mock_selftests.h
index 0c22e0fc9059..18935e311748 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_mock_selftests.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_mock_selftests.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
 
 #ifndef selftest
 #define selftest(x, y)
-- 
2.46.2

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

2024-12-13 Thread Ed Maste 
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 02:25, Greg KH  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 
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher 

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 
Acked-by: Emil Velikov 
Acked-by: Karol Herbst 
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs 

> > Chris, do you confirm your intention of MIT and not GPL for these files?
> >
> > Cc: Greg KH 
> >
> > 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.