| Message ID | 20241208151727.71695-1-emaste@FreeBSD.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/i915: Update license on selftest lists to MIT | expand |
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. > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Chris, do you confirm your intention of MIT and not GPL for these files? Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Greg, is this acceptable? > Signed-off-by: Ed Maste <emaste@FreeBSD.org> > --- > 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 >
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. > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Chris, do you confirm your intention of MIT and not GPL for these files? > > Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > 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 :( good luck! greg k-h
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 02:25, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 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 <christian.koenig@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> 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 <imirkin@alum.mit.edu> Acked-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> Acked-by: Karol Herbst <kherbst@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com> > > Chris, do you confirm your intention of MIT and not GPL for these files? > > > > Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > > > 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.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 10:10:54AM -0500, Ed Maste wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 02:25, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 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 <christian.koenig@amd.com> > Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> > > 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 <imirkin@alum.mit.edu> > Acked-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Karol Herbst <kherbst@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com> > > > > Chris, do you confirm your intention of MIT and not GPL for these files? > > > > > > Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > > > > > 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. Yes, if you get a signed-off-by from a lawyer at Intel, that should cover their contributions, but you also need it for the other contributors as well. Good luck! greg k-h
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)
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 <emaste@FreeBSD.org> --- 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(-)