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

[F.Ultra]

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.

So because I don't agree with you I have to work at some specific place? Seriously such conspiracy reasoning does not increase your credibility (and fyi you cannot guess where I work since it's a company that you have never heard off unless you happen to have great insight into the financial data market in the nordic region).

Again the license change was done by Intel since they want to be able to use the same code for BSD, Red Hat was only involved due to them being the original authors of the code so they had to sign off on the license change which kills your argument right there, aka RH already held the full copyright to this code and could have released it under whatever license they wanted and they choose GPL-2 until Intel asked them otherwise.

So yes this is FUD and there are no huge RH lead campaign to re-license stuff as MIT, Alphabet/Google on the other hand... Which of course you know full well or you would have added lots of examples, but since this is not happening you cannot.

Also this is not them re-licensing the source of the Linux kernel either so another large hole in your argument, there is nothing that RH can do to re-license the Linux kernel, it is GPL2 until eternity. You might hate IBM and RH for various reasons, but this is just uninformed.

[sophisticles]

I know I am going to get a lot of flak from a bunch of zealots, but what else is new; I really believe if everything that is GPL'd now were re-licensed with an MIT or 2-clause BSD style license, Linux adaption on the desktop would soar as would usability.

The GPL is the worst part about Linux.

[stormcrow]

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?

Ask a lawyer who knows what they're doing in the jurisdiction in which you reside. Don't assume you or any other information you read online, from your distro's breathless "these are incompatible!!!" notifications, etc etc.. know what they're talking about. It's a good bet they don't really have a clue because jurisdictions vary greatly and the law is a lot more dependent on context than laymen understand (including your distro as far as legal matters are concerned).

[Beach]

I don't like where this is going. The current Red Hat situation already showed us, that we need a strong copyleft license.

[varikonniemi]

Seems like a step in the wrong direction. Linux won over BSDs because of GPL ensuring work would not be copied and used against them by closed source competitors..

[trek]

Seems like a step in the wrong direction. Linux won over BSDs because of GPL ensuring work would not be copied and used against them by closed source competitors..

on the other hand, the developers who wrote the code probably wants to share their work with other kernels, just to not rewrite the same driver many times