Re: Yeelong and SiliconMotion driver: asking for developers

2010-03-16 Thread Daniel Clark
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 08:51:56AM +, Owain Ainsworth wrote:
 On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:22:28PM -0430, Octavio Rossell wrote:
  The idea of this wiki:
  http://gnu.org.ve/~octavio/lemote/doku.php?id=siliconmotiondriver
  is to collect all info for makin this easy. If any of you have more info
  or has a technical correction is ok (is on free editing mode) but is
  only a space where to put the info with an universal scope.

 Can you please clarify what the comments about GPLv3 are supposed to
 mean on that page? Is it a reference to a non-public discussion?

 If the current driver is licensed under the MIT/X11 license (as it would
 appear that it is) changing it without adding substantial new work is
 legally questionable at best. Furthermore, changing this license after
 adding to it could be considered to be obnoxious and anti-community.

 Anyone's free to tack on a more restrictive license to their work, which
 would bring the entire collection under the same license, but yeah, it
 would be incredibly obnoxious.  X.Org's does not (currently) accept GPL
 packages anyway, so we couldn't merge it back.

 I heard vague rumblings about the FSF convincing Silicon Motion to
 relicense it as GPLv3+ in private, with complete disregard for X.Org.
 Good for the FSF: maybe they can do all the work on it then.

I believe the issue there was that FSF needed some small subset of
code dual-licensed to be able to incorporate it into GRUB2, which is
GPLv3 - GRUB2 is very close to being able to be the only boot firmware
on the actual hardware PLCC chip of the yeeloong, and of course would
load before Xorg.

I don't believe there is any intent to actually try to relicense X; as
you are probably aware FSF has in the past helped the X project with
licensing issues - http://www.fsf.org/news/thank-you-sgi - and knowing
the people involved I sincerely doubt there is any intention to do
anything that would splinter the Xorg codebase.

-- 
Daniel JB Clark | http://pobox.com/~dclark | Activist; Owner
   \|/
   FREEDOM -+- INCLUDED ~ http://freedomincluded.com
   /|\
Free Software respecting hardware ~ Lemote Yeeloong reseller
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg
Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg


Re: Yeelong and SiliconMotion driver: asking for developers

2010-03-16 Thread Daniel Clark
2010/3/16 Bridgman, John john.bridg...@amd.com:
 Ahh, that makes sense -- so the relicensing from X11 to GPLv2 already 
 happened, and the proposed relicensing was going to be from GPLv2 to v3. 
 Asking if the code can be licensed back to X11 (allowing use in the X.org 
 project) certainly sounds like a good next step.

I'm glad we got that misunderstanding out of the way.

If anyone is psyched to work on this, but doesn't have hardware,
Brett/FSF and/or I/Freedom Included and/or Octavio/Poder Digital can
work with Xorg donations people to get a Lemote Yeeloong to the Xorg
project.

It looks like this chipset is also in some other stuff, like some
older Thinkpads:
http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/SMI_LynxEM (checked and you can get some
of them for $50-$100 on ebay).

Happy Hacking,
-- 
Daniel JB Clark | http://pobox.com/~dclark | Activist; Owner
   \|/
   FREEDOM -+- INCLUDED ~ http://freedomincluded.com
   /|\
Free Software respecting hardware ~ Lemote Yeeloong reseller
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg
Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg