Linux's DRM GPUVM Code Relicensed From GPLv2-Only To GPLv2 Or MIT

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Linux's DRM GPUVM Code Relicensed From GPLv2-Only To GPLv2 Or MIT

Sent out today were a new batch of drm-misc-next changesi ntended for Linux 6.7. There's various fixes to the smaller Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) drivers, DRM VM_BIND async documentation, and other small changes. Plus the DRM_GPUVM code has been re-licensed from being GPLv2-only to now GPLv2 or MIT...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-DRM-GPUVM-Relicensed

[unwind-protect]

Good news for the BSDs.

[tildearrow]

Typo:

Sent out today were a new batch of drm-misc-next changesi ntended for Linux 6.7.

[skeevy420]

While the code is to be dual licensed with Linux 6.7, the exported DRM_GPUVM kernel symbols are being kept GPL-only "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" to prevent DRM_GPUVM being used as a proxy by non-GPL kernel drivers like the NVIDIA proprietary driver.

It seems like the MIT and GPL 2.0 are being used incompatibly here. Paraphrased, the MIT basically says "Do WTF ever as long as it doesn't impose limitations or restrictions on the Software" while the GPL is the one that allows these GPL-only limitations. By imposing GPL-only limitations, does that violate the MIT or does the MIT's extreme permissiveness allow imposing GPL-like limitations? The way the MIT is written means absolute freedom just as much as it means imposing restrictions on usage depending on how it is interpreted.

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:

Does the MIT act as an Uno Reverse card meaning that distributions can just set it to use EXPORT_SYMBOL?

What does it mean when the license used in the right to use a sublicense happens to impose limitations on the rights to use the Software without restriction, including without limitation?

Does that make the MIT and GPL incompatible when the GPL is used to limit and restrict the Software's usage which the MIT prohibits or does the MIT null out GPL-imposed restrictions?

[unwind-protect]

It seems like the MIT and GPL 2.0 are being used incompatibly here. Paraphrased, the MIT basically says "Do WTF ever as long as it doesn't impose limitations or restrictions on the Software" while the GPL is the one that allows these GPL-only limitations. By imposing GPL-only limitations, does that violate the MIT or does the MIT's extreme permissiveness allow imposing GPL-like limitations? The way the MIT is written means absolute freedom just as much as it means imposing restrictions on usage depending on how it is interpreted.

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:

Does the MIT act as an Uno Reverse card meaning that distributions can just set it to use EXPORT_SYMBOL?

What does it mean when the license used in the right to use a sublicense happens to impose limitations on the rights to use the Software without restriction, including without limitation?

Does that make the MIT and GPL incompatible when the GPL is used to limit and restrict the Software's usage which the MIT prohibits or does the MIT null out GPL-imposed restrictions?

The MIT license is widely regarded as GPL-compatible (as is 2-clause BSD).

[OneTimeShot]

What does it mean when the license used in the right to use a sublicense happens to impose limitations on the rights to use the Software without restriction, including without limitation?

It just means if you fork it, your fork can be either MIT or GPLv2 licensed. If you are sending code upstream it has to retain both licenses. If you send a patch and say "GPLv2 only", they won't merge it.

Basically all of this "move away from GPL" is so that IBM/RedHat can do what they do best... not give you the source code.

[F.Ultra]

It just means if you fork it, your fork can be either MIT or GPLv2 licensed. If you are sending code upstream it has to retain both licenses. If you send a patch and say "GPLv2 only", they won't merge it.

Basically all of this "move away from GPL" is so that IBM/RedHat can do what they do best... not give you the source code.

It's driven by Intel, RH have not removed any ones access to source code. Stop spreading FUD.

[OneTimeShot]

It's driven by Intel, RH have not removed any ones access to source code. Stop spreading FUD.

LOL - I wonder who you work for... No. IBM bought RedHat to control Linux. They are starting by cancelling your RedHat license if you redistribute the code they are required to share with you. They are moving code to MIT so that they don't have to distribute it at all. This isn't FUD, it's literally happening now.

[skeevy420]

It just means if you fork it, your fork can be either MIT or GPLv2 licensed. If you are sending code upstream it has to retain both licenses. If you send a patch and say "GPLv2 only", they won't merge it.

Basically all of this "move away from GPL" is so that IBM/RedHat can do what they do best... not give you the source code.

I get that, and forking is covered under the MIT, but the license also says how the code can and can't be used in practice. That's what I'm questioning. Can code that's dual-licensed with the GPL actually be limited to GPL-only interactions when the Software is compiled and being used? The way I read the MIT, that answer is no because that's a direct limitation on the usage of the Software.

unwind-protect Because they're supposed to be compatible is what made me curious enough to read the MIT's fine print. It seems like they are compatible assuming the Software isn't put under any restrictions in use like EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Technically speaking, that goes against the very first stipulation of the MIT which grants an unimpeded right to use the Software.

Which licenses' rules are supposed supersede which when they aren't being used in a mutually exclusive manner?

[smitty3268]

Which licenses' rules are supposed supersede which when they aren't being used in a mutually exclusive manner?

I haven't looked at any of the particulars here to know if it's correct that the restrictions are invalid for MIT code, but assuming they are there's no real issues.

The MIT/GPL code can be taken under either license, but if the export symbol gpl means you can't use it as MIT code, then you can't use it as MIT code. You'd have to use it as GPL code when running it in the linux kernel.

It's still useful though, because the code itself can still be taken as MIT code, copied/forked to another platform like BSD, and used as MIT code there if it doesn't have any kind of export symbol restrictions applied to it in that system.