From: Vladimir D. <vo...@mi...> - 2005-04-26 15:29:51
|
Hi all, Can someone enlighten me as to what is the license of R200 Mesa driver ? Also, what is the usual (accepted, preferred, etc..) license for a Mesa driver code ? thank you ! Vladimir Dergachev |
From: Donnie B. <spy...@ge...> - 2005-04-27 03:42:40
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Vladimir Dergachev wrote: > Can someone enlighten me as to what is the license of R200 Mesa > driver ? Also, what is the usual (accepted, preferred, etc..) license > for a Mesa driver code ? Taken a look at the top of any the files in src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200? Here's what's there: /* $XFree86: xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/r200/r200_lock.c,v 1.1 2002/10/30 12:51:52 alanh Exp $ */ /* Copyright (C) The Weather Channel, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved. The Weather Channel (TM) funded Tungsten Graphics to develop the initial release of the Radeon 8500 driver under the XFree86 license. This notice must be preserved. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (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 (including the next paragraph) 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 COPYRIGHT OWNER(S) AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS 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. **************************************************************************/ /* * Authors: * Keith Whitwell <ke...@tu...> */ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCbwonXVaO67S1rtsRAjabAJ9nNjaz3GCn3eaxNiAw3rVbFFjdDgCghPhX k1qkCe+RQsSGByInqU8+EeQ= =dq5j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2005-04-27 08:30:32
|
Donnie Berkholz wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Vladimir Dergachev wrote: > >> Can someone enlighten me as to what is the license of R200 Mesa >>driver ? Also, what is the usual (accepted, preferred, etc..) license >>for a Mesa driver code ? > > > Taken a look at the top of any the files in src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200? > Here's what's there: > > /* $XFree86: xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/r200/r200_lock.c,v 1.1 2002/10/30 > 12:51:52 alanh Exp $ */ > /* > Copyright (C) The Weather Channel, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved. > > The Weather Channel (TM) funded Tungsten Graphics to develop the > initial release of the Radeon 8500 driver under the XFree86 license. > This notice must be preserved. Basically the standard license for the Mesa drivers is the part from here down, plus a copyright line as above, with whoever you want as the copyright holder. > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining > a copy of this software and associated documentation files (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 (including the > next paragraph) 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 COPYRIGHT OWNER(S) AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS 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. > > **************************************************************************/ Keith |
From: Vladimir D. <vo...@mi...> - 2005-04-27 16:52:38
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Keith Whitwell wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Vladimir Dergachev wrote: >> >>> Can someone enlighten me as to what is the license of R200 Mesa >>> driver ? Also, what is the usual (accepted, preferred, etc..) license >>> for a Mesa driver code ? >> >> >> Taken a look at the top of any the files in src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200? >> Here's what's there: >> >> /* $XFree86: xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/r200/r200_lock.c,v 1.1 2002/10/30 >> 12:51:52 alanh Exp $ */ >> /* >> Copyright (C) The Weather Channel, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved. >> >> The Weather Channel (TM) funded Tungsten Graphics to develop the >> initial release of the Radeon 8500 driver under the XFree86 license. >> This notice must be preserved. > > Basically the standard license for the Mesa drivers is the part from here > down, plus a copyright line as above, with whoever you want as the copyright > holder. So is it XFree86 license ? Pre or post 4.4.0 ? Or something else ? thank you ! Vladimir Dergachev > >> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining >> a copy of this software and associated documentation files (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 (including the >> next paragraph) 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 COPYRIGHT OWNER(S) AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS 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. >> >> **************************************************************************/ > > Keith > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans! > Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net > Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey > Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix > -- > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Dave A. <ai...@li...> - 2005-04-27 17:10:03
|
> > So is it XFree86 license ? Pre or post 4.4.0 ? Or something else ? > MIT.. Dave. -- David Airlie, Software Engineer http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie Linux kernel - DRI, VAX / pam_smb / ILUG |
From: Mike A. H. <mh...@ww...> - 2005-04-27 22:41:17
|
Vladimir Dergachev wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Keith Whitwell wrote: > >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Vladimir Dergachev wrote: >>> >>>> Can someone enlighten me as to what is the license of R200 Mesa >>>> driver ? Also, what is the usual (accepted, preferred, etc..) license >>>> for a Mesa driver code ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Taken a look at the top of any the files in src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200? >>> Here's what's there: >>> >>> /* $XFree86: xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/r200/r200_lock.c,v 1.1 2002/10/30 >>> 12:51:52 alanh Exp $ */ >>> /* >>> Copyright (C) The Weather Channel, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved. >>> >>> The Weather Channel (TM) funded Tungsten Graphics to develop the >>> initial release of the Radeon 8500 driver under the XFree86 license. >>> This notice must be preserved. >> >> >> Basically the standard license for the Mesa drivers is the part from >> here down, plus a copyright line as above, with whoever you want as >> the copyright holder. > > > So is it XFree86 license ? Pre or post 4.4.0 ? Or something else ? I would recommend avoiding confusion, and not using the name "XFree86 license" unless refering specifically to the XFree86 project. When refering to the XFree86 project's license, it is also best to indicate what specific version of the license you're refering to, as the older license was more or less "MIT style", while the newer one has additional restrictions. "MIT/X11 License" is the traditional X license which most of the xc/* codebase is licensed under, including most drivers, etc. If adding a new driver to the tree, please license it MIT/X11. |
From: Vladimir D. <vo...@mi...> - 2005-04-28 03:27:20
|
>>>> >>>> /* $XFree86: xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/r200/r200_lock.c,v 1.1 2002/10/30 >>>> 12:51:52 alanh Exp $ */ >>>> /* >>>> Copyright (C) The Weather Channel, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved. >>>> >>>> The Weather Channel (TM) funded Tungsten Graphics to develop the >>>> initial release of the Radeon 8500 driver under the XFree86 license. >>>> This notice must be preserved. >>> >>> >>> Basically the standard license for the Mesa drivers is the part from here >>> down, plus a copyright line as above, with whoever you want as the >>> copyright holder. >> >> >> So is it XFree86 license ? Pre or post 4.4.0 ? Or something else ? > > I would recommend avoiding confusion, and not using the name "XFree86 > license" unless refering specifically to the XFree86 project. When > refering to the XFree86 project's license, it is also best to indicate > what specific version of the license you're refering to, as the older > license was more or less "MIT style", while the newer one has additional > restrictions. > > "MIT/X11 License" is the traditional X license which most of the xc/* > codebase is licensed under, including most drivers, etc. If adding a > new driver to the tree, please license it MIT/X11. Yes, but my understanding was that Mesa is a separate piece of software from Xorg or XFree86 trees. I thought initially that it was under LGPL, but looking at http://www.mesa3d.org it does not appear so. There are many different licenses and there does not appear to be a policy for individual drivers. Not that the choice isn't good - it is :) The reason I am asking this is that I was recently asked whether R300 driver is free software (from GNU point of view) and I realized that I don't know precise answer that is pedantic enough from lawyers point of view. So to sum up what I know so far: * original R200 driver is under MIT/X11 license * the R300 driver derived from it appears under the same license due to the notices left over from R200 files (as we originally thought to merge the code in R200). This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - please let me know ! * The DRM driver is under dual GPL/BSD license except for select pieces of linux code. R300 patches to it need to be under the same dual license to be usable both with Linux and BSD. Corrections and clarifications are much appreciated. thank you Vladimir Dergachev > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans! > Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net > Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey > Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix > -- > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Adam J. <aj...@nw...> - 2005-04-28 04:04:35
|
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 23:26, Vladimir Dergachev wrote: > Not that the choice isn't good - it is :) > > The reason I am asking this is that I was recently asked whether R300 > driver is free software (from GNU point of view) and I realized that I > don't know precise answer that is pedantic enough from lawyers point of > view. > > So to sum up what I know so far: > > * original R200 driver is under MIT/X11 license > > * the R300 driver derived from it appears under the same > license due to the notices left over from R200 files > (as we originally thought to merge the code in R200). > > This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - > please let me know ! > > * The DRM driver is under dual GPL/BSD license except for select > pieces of linux code. R300 patches to it need to be under the > same dual license to be usable both with Linux and BSD. The DRM policy is that anything in the shared and shared-core directories m= ust=20 be BSD-license-compatible so they can be used from BSD OSes. The bits unde= r=20 linux*/ are allowed to contain GPL code but this should be minimized as muc= h=20 as possible to minimize the porting pain for other platforms. So assuming the R300 contributions are still MIT-licensed, the R300 driver = is=20 =46ree Software. =2D ajax |
From: Aapo T. <ae...@ra...> - 2005-04-30 10:12:34
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Vladimir Dergachev <vo...@mi...> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> /* $XFree86: xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/r200/r200_lock.c,v 1.1 2002/10/30 > >>>> 12:51:52 alanh Exp $ */ > >>>> /* > >>>> Copyright (C) The Weather Channel, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved. > >>>> > >>>> The Weather Channel (TM) funded Tungsten Graphics to develop the > >>>> initial release of the Radeon 8500 driver under the XFree86 license. > >>>> This notice must be preserved. > >>> > >>> > >>> Basically the standard license for the Mesa drivers is the part from here > >>> down, plus a copyright line as above, with whoever you want as the > >>> copyright holder. > >> > >> > >> So is it XFree86 license ? Pre or post 4.4.0 ? Or something else ? > > > > I would recommend avoiding confusion, and not using the name "XFree86 > > license" unless refering specifically to the XFree86 project. When > > refering to the XFree86 project's license, it is also best to indicate > > what specific version of the license you're refering to, as the older > > license was more or less "MIT style", while the newer one has additional > > restrictions. > > > > "MIT/X11 License" is the traditional X license which most of the xc/* > > codebase is licensed under, including most drivers, etc. If adding a > > new driver to the tree, please license it MIT/X11. > > Yes, but my understanding was that Mesa is a separate piece of software > from Xorg or XFree86 trees. > > I thought initially that it was under LGPL, but looking at > http://www.mesa3d.org it does not appear so. There are many different > licenses and there does not appear to be a policy for individual drivers. > > Not that the choice isn't good - it is :) > > The reason I am asking this is that I was recently asked whether R300 > driver is free software (from GNU point of view) and I realized that I > don't know precise answer that is pedantic enough from lawyers point of > view. > > So to sum up what I know so far: > > * original R200 driver is under MIT/X11 license > > * the R300 driver derived from it appears under the same > license due to the notices left over from R200 files > (as we originally thought to merge the code in R200). Well we still could merge them. Unplugging r200 side just seemed to be easier since nobody seems to know weither we actually should merge them. > > This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - > please let me know ! Fine by me. > > * The DRM driver is under dual GPL/BSD license except for select > pieces of linux code. R300 patches to it need to be under the > same dual license to be usable both with Linux and BSD. > > Corrections and clarifications are much appreciated. > > thank you > > Vladimir Dergachev > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans! > > Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net > > Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey > > Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > Dri-devel mailing list > > Dri...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans! > Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net > Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey > Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix > -- > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel -- Aapo Tahkola |
From: Jerome G. <j.g...@gm...> - 2005-04-30 16:24:58
|
> > This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - > > please let me know ! Fine for me too. Jerome Glisse |
From: Ben S. <dar...@ii...> - 2005-04-30 16:32:23
|
>>> This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - >>> please let me know ! >>> >>> Fine by me. |
From: Paul M. <pa...@sa...> - 2005-05-01 01:41:14
|
Vladimir Dergachev writes: > * the R300 driver derived from it appears under the same > license due to the notices left over from R200 files > (as we originally thought to merge the code in R200). > > This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - > please let me know ! What exactly needs approval? The current license, or are you proposing a change to the license? As far as the tiny bit of code that I have contributed is concerned, I am happy for it to be under MIT/X11, BSD, LGPL or GPL. Your choice. :) Paul. |
From: Vladimir D. <vo...@mi...> - 2005-05-01 04:41:28
|
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Vladimir Dergachev writes: > >> * the R300 driver derived from it appears under the same >> license due to the notices left over from R200 files >> (as we originally thought to merge the code in R200). >> >> This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - >> please let me know ! > > What exactly needs approval? The current license, or are you > proposing a change to the license? Just wanted to confirm that everyone is ok with MIT/X11 license. It was never explicit before - my fault, I was having too much fun playing with the code :) > > As far as the tiny bit of code that I have contributed is concerned, I > am happy for it to be under MIT/X11, BSD, LGPL or GPL. Your > choice. :) Thank you ! Vladimir Dergachev > > Paul. > |
From: Nicolai H. <pre...@gm...> - 2005-05-01 08:17:09
|
On Sunday 01 May 2005 06:41, Vladimir Dergachev wrote: > On Sun, 1 May 2005, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > Vladimir Dergachev writes: > > > >> * the R300 driver derived from it appears under the same > >> license due to the notices left over from R200 files > >> (as we originally thought to merge the code in R200). > >> > >> This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - > >> please let me know ! > > > > What exactly needs approval? The current license, or are you > > proposing a change to the license? >=20 > Just wanted to confirm that everyone is ok with MIT/X11 license. > It was never explicit before - my fault, I was having too much fun playin= g=20 > with the code :) I always thought it was explicit, at least for me - I didn't just copy&past= e=20 blindly ;) So yes, I'm obviously okay with that license. cu, Nicolai |
From: Peter Z. <pz...@po...> - 2005-05-01 10:23:46
|
>> Vladimir Dergachev writes: >> >>> * the R300 driver derived from it appears under the same >>> license due to the notices left over from R200 files >>> (as we originally thought to merge the code in R200). >>> >>> This needs approval from everyone who contributed to R300 - >>> please let me know ! >> Do what you want (use any licence you want) with few rows I added. Peter Zubaj |