Re: licenses, R300 code, etc

[Vladimir D. <vo...@mi...>]

>>>> 
>>>> /* $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
>