Re: Yeelong and SiliconMotion driver: asking for developers

2010-03-17 Thread Owain Ainsworth
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:49:13PM -0400, Brett Smith wrote:
 Some of the developers who were packaging software for the machine
 pointed out that this license was unfortunate for them, because they
 were interested in getting GRUB running on the box as well, and of
 course, GPLv2-only is not a compatible license for a GPLv3-covered
 project like GRUB.  With that issue in front of him, RMS asked
 SiliconMotion to allow the code to be used under the terms of GPLv3, one
 way or another, which they agreed to.
 
 Please don't read any malice into that request, because I assure you
 there was none.  The FSF has consistently advocated that developers
 should use licenses that are consistent with the larger projects they
 interact with (as long as those licenses are free and GPL-compatible),
 and that advice definitely applies to Xorg drivers.  If we made a
 mistake here, it was a failure to connect the dots.  As weird as it
 might sound, I don't think it was clear at the time that we were talking
 about the licensing of an entire Xorg driver.  If we had known that, we
 would've asked SiliconMotion to switch to the X11 license, if possible,
 to stay consistent with Xorg generally.
 
 And I'm happy to talk to SiliconMotion about that now.  I don't know if
 you have a usual way of handling licensing requests like this, but if
 you want me to keep anybody or any lists in the loop on that thread,
 that's no problem either; just let me know.  And either way, if you have
 any other questions or concerns about this, please don't hesitate to ask
 me.

A switch in the siliconmotion improved stuff to MIT/X11 would be very
beneficial to the BSDs, and X as a whole since it could be part of the
main X distribution.

I would appreciate it if you would keep me (at this address or
o...@openbsd.org) informed about any progress on this.

on another note, I have a lemote in the post, so I may be able to look
at some of the Lynx EM+ issues. I was considering doing a kms driver
when i've got OpenBSDs kms infrastructure thrashed out.

-0-
-- 
There's no room in the drug world for amateurs.
___
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

2010-03-10 Thread Owain Ainsworth
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.

Cheers,
-0-
-- 
A large number of installed systems work by fiat.  That is, they work
by being declared to work.
-- Anatol Holt
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg
Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg