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 must be BSD-license-compatible so they can be used from BSD OSes. The bits under linux*/ are allowed to contain GPL code but this should be minimized as much as possible to minimize the porting pain for other platforms. So assuming the R300 contributions are still MIT-licensed, the R300 driver is Free Software. - ajax
pgp5L3xQMGsGV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
