>>If the Linux community contributes to DC, I guess those contributions
can generally be assumed to be GPLv2 licensed.  Yet a future version
of the macOS driver would incorporate those contributions in the same
binary as their closed source OS-specific portion.


My understanding of the "general rule" was that contributions are normally 
assumed to be made under the "local license", ie GPLv2 for kernel changes in 
general, but the appropriate lower-level license when made to a specific 
subsystem with a more permissive license (eg the X11 license aka MIT aka "GPL 
plus additional rights" license we use for almost all of the graphics 
subsystem. If DC is not X11 licensed today it should be (but I'm pretty sure it 
already is).


We need to keep the graphics subsystem permissively licensed in general to 
allow uptake by other free OS projects such as *BSD, not just closed source.


Either way, driver-level maintainers are going to have to make sure that 
contributions have clear licensing.


Thanks,

John

________________________________
From: dri-devel <dri-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org> on behalf of Lukas 
Wunner <lu...@wunner.de>
Sent: December 13, 2016 4:40 AM
To: Cheng, Tony
Cc: Grodzovsky, Andrey; dri-devel; amd-gfx mailing list; Deucher, Alexander
Subject: Re: [RFC] Using DC in amdgpu for upcoming GPU

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:52:08PM -0500, Cheng, Tony wrote:
> With DC the display hardware programming, resource optimization, power
> management and interaction with rest of system will be fully validated
> across multiple OSs.

Do I understand DAL3.jpg correctly that the macOS driver builds on top
of DAL Core?  I'm asking because the graphics drivers shipping with
macOS as well as on Apple's EFI Firmware Volume are closed source.

If the Linux community contributes to DC, I guess those contributions
can generally be assumed to be GPLv2 licensed.  Yet a future version
of the macOS driver would incorporate those contributions in the same
binary as their closed source OS-specific portion.

I don't quite see how that would be legal but maybe I'm missing
something.

Presumably the situation with the Windows driver is the same.

I guess you could maintain a separate branch sans community contributions
which would serve as a basis for closed source drivers, but not sure if
that is feasible given your resource constraints.

Thanks,

Lukas
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

Reply via email to