From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:35722 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758351Ab2JKLdB (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:33:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:37:49 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Dave Airlie Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Robert Morell , linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, rob@ti.com, Sumit Semwal , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL Message-ID: <20121011123749.28256320@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <1349884592-32485-1-git-send-email-rmorell@nvidia.com> <20121010191702.404edace@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121010221119.6a623417@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > So, developers implicitly or explicitly copied in this thread that might be > > considering the usage of dmabuf on proprietary drivers should consider > > this email as a formal notification of my viewpoint: e. g. that I consider > > any attempt of using DMABUF or media core/drivers together with proprietary > > Kernelspace code as a possible GPL infringement. > > Though that does beg the question why you care about this patch :-) Because my legal advice is to object and remind people who suggest otherwise. There are specific reasons to do so around estoppel and willful infringement. It's not a case of objections anyway - if the _GPL matters then it's a licensing change so you need the approval of everyone whose code is involved. At that point I think Nvidia are starting in the wrong place and need to start with a collection of vendors corporate legal contacts and then work down the call tree involved. Alan