Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/9] drm/xen-front: Introduce Xen para-virtualized frontend driver

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko <andr2000@gmail.com>]

On 02/21/2018 12:19 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:42:23AM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> On 02/21/2018 11:17 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:03:34AM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xen/xen_drm_front.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + *  Xen para-virtual DRM device
>>>> + *
>>>> + *   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>> + *   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>>> + *   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>>>> + *   (at your option) any later version.
>>>> + *
>>>> + *   This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>>> + *   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>>> + *   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>>>> + *   GNU General Public License for more details.
>>> Most Xen drivers in Linux use a dual GPL/BSD license, so that they can
>>> be imported into other non GPL OSes:
>>>
>>> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>> modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
>>> as published by the Free Software Foundation; or, when distributed
>>> separately from the Linux kernel or incorporated into other
>>> software packages, subject to the following license:
>>>
>>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
>>> of this source file (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
>>> restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify,
>>> merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software,
>>> and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
>>> the following conditions:
>>>
>>> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
>>> all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>>>
>>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
>>> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
>>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
>>> AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
>>> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
>>> FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
>>> IN THE SOFTWARE.
>>>
>>> IMO it would be good to release this driver under the same license, so
>>> it can be incorporated into other OSes.
>> I am in any way expert in licensing, but the above seems to be
>> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) */
>> At least this is what I see at [1] for MIT.
>> Could you please tell which license(s) as listed at [1]
>> would be appropriate for Xen drivers in terms of how it is
>> expected to appear in the kernel code, e.g. expected
>> SPDX-License-Identifier?
> I would be fine with anything MIT/BSD-*/Apache-* like. In the Xen
> community we have generally done dual GPL-2.0 MIT, so your proposed
> tag looks fine IMO (I would also personally be fine with
> MIT/BSD-*/Apache-* only).
Ok, then I am about to use /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) */
>
> The point is that it would be good to have the code under a more
> permissive license so it can be integrated into non GPL OSes in the
> future if needed, and that your code could be used as a reference for
> that.
That is clear, no objections
> Thanks, Roger.
Thank you,
Oleksandr