Re: Yeelong and SiliconMotion driver: asking for developers
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
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:49:13PM -0400, Brett Smith wrote: >> When we started looking at software for the SiliconMotion hardware (as >> part of evaluating how free software-friendly a particular machine was), >> we found a modified driver from the SiliconMotion company that seemed to >> have some useful changes. The company was distributing it under GPLv2 >> only. >> >> 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. > > Fair enough -- sorry if my reply was a bit harsh. It'd be great if you > guys were willing to work with SMI to get it relicensed to MIT/X11, as > for better or worse, we only accept MIT/X11 or non-four-clause BSD. We > do host the development of some GPL drivers (xf86-input-synaptics, > xf86-video-avivo), but we don't distribute these as a part of X.Org at > all. Even so, these are GPLv2 rather than GPLv3, which would be a lot > more problematic. FWIW, SMI has been involved in the siliconmotion xorg driver before (they contributed a fair amount of the original code), although most of the recent work has been done by contributors. Alex ___ 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
Hi, On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:49:13PM -0400, Brett Smith wrote: > When we started looking at software for the SiliconMotion hardware (as > part of evaluating how free software-friendly a particular machine was), > we found a modified driver from the SiliconMotion company that seemed to > have some useful changes. The company was distributing it under GPLv2 > only. > > 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. Fair enough -- sorry if my reply was a bit harsh. It'd be great if you guys were willing to work with SMI to get it relicensed to MIT/X11, as for better or worse, we only accept MIT/X11 or non-four-clause BSD. We do host the development of some GPL drivers (xf86-input-synaptics, xf86-video-avivo), but we don't distribute these as a part of X.Org at all. Even so, these are GPLv2 rather than GPLv3, which would be a lot more problematic. For legal issues, the Foundation Board (bo...@foundation.x.org) handles all of that, and just ask the list or myself about technical stuff (SMI driver, code hosting, etc). Cheers, Daniel pgpWktpU1J30o.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Hi, On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 05:19:40PM -0400, Daniel Clark wrote: > 2010/3/16 Bridgman, John : > > 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). As with all other drivers, if someone seriously wants to maintain it but doesn't have the hardware, then the Foundation has a hardware budget set aside for exactly this. Cheers, Daniel pgpdLrxvmEsQy.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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
2010/3/16 Bridgman, John : > 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
RE: Yeelong and SiliconMotion driver: asking for developers
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 don't know if there is a formal process for determining if a proposed licensing change is "appropriate" but I imagine that would be a board decision after the request was kicked around on the xorg mailing list as it is now... so everything is probably happening as it should. I'm only guessing so if you get a different answer from someone else go with that ;) -Original Message- From: Brett Smith [mailto:br...@fsf.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:49 PM To: Bridgman, John Cc: 'Daniel Clark'; Daniel Stone; Owain Ainsworth; Octavio Rossell; xorg@lists.freedesktop.org; Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko; Bernie Innocenti Subject: RE: Yeelong and SiliconMotion driver: asking for developers Hi everyone, I'm sorry for the confusion that's sprung up around this issue. I hope I can get everything clarified -- I think we're all really on the same page here about what would be ideal. On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 10:16 -0700, Bridgman, John wrote: > Is there a reason that graphics code can not be included in the GRUB2 project > with its current license ? > > My recollection was that the X11 license was considered "GPL compatible" in > the sense that it *could* be relicensed if necessary. Graphics driver code is > included in the Linux kernel without relicensing, ie it retains its current > X11 license even though it lives in an otherwise GPLv2-licensed tree. > > Is there something about GPLv3 which prevents the same approach from being > used, or are we just talking about a GRUB2 project rule which disallows > "compatible" licenses and requires actual GPLv3 licensing ? None of those is the case. Your understanding about compatibility is correct, all the same rules apply to GPLv3, and there's no GRUB project policy that would prevent them from including X11-licensed code. When we started looking at software for the SiliconMotion hardware (as part of evaluating how free software-friendly a particular machine was), we found a modified driver from the SiliconMotion company that seemed to have some useful changes. The company was distributing it under GPLv2 only. 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. Thanks, -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation Join us in Cambridge for LibrePlanet, March 19th-21st! http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/LibrePlanet2010 ___ 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
Is there a reason that graphics code can not be included in the GRUB2 project with its current license ? My recollection was that the X11 license was considered "GPL compatible" in the sense that it *could* be relicensed if necessary. Graphics driver code is included in the Linux kernel without relicensing, ie it retains its current X11 license even though it lives in an otherwise GPLv2-licensed tree. Is there something about GPLv3 which prevents the same approach from being used, or are we just talking about a GRUB2 project rule which disallows "compatible" licenses and requires actual GPLv3 licensing ? -Original Message- From: xorg-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:xorg-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:25 AM To: Daniel Stone; Owain Ainsworth; Octavio Rossell; xorg@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko; Bernie Innocenti; Brett C Smith Subject: Re: Yeelong and SiliconMotion driver: asking for developers On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Daniel Stone 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 ___ 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
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Daniel Stone 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
I said the text may contain bugs. This is one of them and I have fixed it. Any Free Licence will work. The main problem here is a performance behaviour. Owain Ainsworth escribió: > 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- -- __ | , , | | / \ | | ((__-^^-,-^^-__))Octavio Rossell Tabet | | `-_---' `---_-' octa...@gnu.org.ve | | `--|o` 'o|--' http://octavio.gnu.org.ve | | \ ` / irc.gnu.org.ve #gnu | | .: :. Usuario de GNU/Linux: 278860| | :o_o: Huella: FC69 551B ECB9 62B0 D992| |"-" BE57 B551 2497 C78B 870A| |__| <>___ 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
Apart from minor bugs that are already largely solved, Yeelong video driver suffers from performance issues related to video decoding. The main problem, as I understand it, appears to be that the LynxEM chipset can handle only packed YUV while most of the time frames are given as planar YUV (I'm not experienced with video decoding but I assume it's due to YUV components being encoded separately). So the video driver have to pack the data it receives from the Xv client in order for the chipset to perform its YUV->RGB on-the-fly conversion. The current smi driver does this by calling Xv helper function for this job, which is dog slow and deprive mplayer of needed CPU horsepower. Noticing this bottleneck, Lemote devs added a faster conversion routine using MMX loongson assembler right into smi driver. As far as I know all the patchs around that makes mplayed videos fast are based on this ugly hack. So, since the paid professionals were not given appropriate time to fix the slowness issue the proper way, we the unpaid amateurs will have to work on it on our spare time :-) Of course SMI driver must keep calling Xv generic conversion function. But patching Xv with architecture specific assembly is not much better. Xv should instead use a library that offers this kind of image processing functions optimised for the running architecture. This library already exist, is called libpixman and is in fact already used by some other parts of X11. Unfortunately YUV conversion functions are not currently supported by libpixman, although some work is being done in this direction. Finishing this work, adding support for loongson MMX instructions and then patch Xv to use libpixman would be the perfect solution to our problem. I was about to try this path when I discovered that libpixman project is also considering another radically different evolution : to replace all architecture specific pieces of code by a more generic JIT compiler. Of course I quickly dropped the idea of patching YUV + loongson into pixman and embraced the JIT thing instead. Why hack for two weeks when you could be hacking for six months ? >8) ___ 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
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. Cheers, Daniel pgpFbPCXBs3ww.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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
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
