Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Update license on selftest lists to MIT

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 06:19:00PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 03:17:27PM +0000, Ed Maste wrote:
> > These two files (i915_live_selftests.h, i915_mock_selftests.h) were
> > introduced in commit 953c7f82eb89 ("drm/i915: Provide a hook for
> > selftests") and are effectively just a list of selftests.
> > 
> > The selftest implementation itself is largely in i915_selftest.c, and
> > uses a MIT license.  Graphics drivers are shared with other operating
> > systems and have long used a permissive license (or dual license) to
> > facilitate this.
> > 
> > The two selftest list files carried no license when introduced in
> > 953c7f82eb89, presumably as they were considered trivial.  Notably the
> > general selftest header i915_selftest.h (which does have non-trivial
> > content) also has an MIT license.
> > 
> > The GPL-2.0 SPDX tag in these two files came from b24413180f56, where
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman added the tag to all files that had no license.  This
> > makes sense in general, but it is clear from the context of the original
> > selftest commit here that these files are a trivial part of an otherwise
> > MIT-licensed patch to a MIT-licensed component, and should have an MIT
> > license.

No, that is not clear, by default, anything without a license gets the
GPL2 license as that is the license of the entire body of code.

> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> 
> Chris, do you confirm your intention of MIT and not GPL for these files?
> 
> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> 
> Greg, is this acceptable?

You need to get a signed-off-by from everyone who has touched these
files, which is not what you have done here :(

good luck!

greg k-h