Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL status

[John Hubbard]

On 03/08/2017 02:12 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:59:33AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:



On 03/08/2017 01:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:

From: John Hubbard 

Hi,

Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
kref_put routines, because when designing some
recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.


MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.


Actually, we're still using this license string:

   MODULE_LICENSE("MIT");

which I understand does *not* grant access to GPL symbols. So I guess we'd
have to switch over to "MIT/GPL", if I understand correctly, in order to be
all correct here.


You need to write this as:
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
for the linker to handle this properly as that is the string it is
looking for.


Yes, understood. I thought from your previous response that maybe "MIT" alone was 
*intended* to provide access, but this makes sense and matches what I'd thought 
earlier. And of course, your other point (about the header itself being licensed) 
overrides this, but it's nice to get clarification on this detail, as long as I'm 
stuck--for now--on "MIT".


Appreciate your time and quick responses on this, I know it's probably tiresome to 
answer these sorts of questions.


thanks again,
john h




thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL status

[John Hubbard]

On 03/08/2017 02:12 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:59:33AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:



On 03/08/2017 01:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:

From: John Hubbard 

Hi,

Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
kref_put routines, because when designing some
recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.


MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.


Actually, we're still using this license string:

   MODULE_LICENSE("MIT");

which I understand does *not* grant access to GPL symbols. So I guess we'd
have to switch over to "MIT/GPL", if I understand correctly, in order to be
all correct here.


You need to write this as:
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
for the linker to handle this properly as that is the string it is
looking for.


Yes, understood. I thought from your previous response that maybe "MIT" alone was 
*intended* to provide access, but this makes sense and matches what I'd thought 
earlier. And of course, your other point (about the header itself being licensed) 
overrides this, but it's nice to get clarification on this detail, as long as I'm 
stuck--for now--on "MIT".


Appreciate your time and quick responses on this, I know it's probably tiresome to 
answer these sorts of questions.


thanks again,
john h




thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL status

[John Hubbard]

On 03/08/2017 01:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:

From: John Hubbard 

Hi,

Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
kref_put routines, because when designing some
recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.


MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.


Actually, we're still using this license string:

   MODULE_LICENSE("MIT");

which I understand does *not* grant access to GPL symbols. So I guess we'd have to 
switch over to "MIT/GPL", if I understand correctly, in order to be all correct here.




As all of the previous kref functions were in a GPL-only header file,
and included directly that way, they were already GPL-only symbols, so
there really was no change here except now the linker checks them.  If
you have questions about using inline GPL-only functions from a .h file,
in a non-GPL codebase, please consult your corporate lawyer to get
clarification.


As much as I do enjoy chatting with those guys, I think I'll pass this time. :)

thanks,
John Hubbard
NVIDIA



thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL status

[John Hubbard]

On 03/08/2017 01:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:

From: John Hubbard 

Hi,

Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
kref_put routines, because when designing some
recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.


MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.


Actually, we're still using this license string:

   MODULE_LICENSE("MIT");

which I understand does *not* grant access to GPL symbols. So I guess we'd have to 
switch over to "MIT/GPL", if I understand correctly, in order to be all correct here.




As all of the previous kref functions were in a GPL-only header file,
and included directly that way, they were already GPL-only symbols, so
there really was no change here except now the linker checks them.  If
you have questions about using inline GPL-only functions from a .h file,
in a non-GPL codebase, please consult your corporate lawyer to get
clarification.


As much as I do enjoy chatting with those guys, I think I'll pass this time. :)

thanks,
John Hubbard
NVIDIA



thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL status

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:59:33AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/08/2017 01:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > From: John Hubbard 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
> > > I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
> > > Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
> > > firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
> > > kref_put routines, because when designing some
> > > recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
> > > on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.
> > 
> > MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
> > correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.
> 
> Actually, we're still using this license string:
> 
>MODULE_LICENSE("MIT");
> 
> which I understand does *not* grant access to GPL symbols. So I guess we'd
> have to switch over to "MIT/GPL", if I understand correctly, in order to be
> all correct here.

You need to write this as:
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
for the linker to handle this properly as that is the string it is
looking for.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL status

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:59:33AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/08/2017 01:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > From: John Hubbard 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
> > > I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
> > > Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
> > > firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
> > > kref_put routines, because when designing some
> > > recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
> > > on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.
> > 
> > MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
> > correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.
> 
> Actually, we're still using this license string:
> 
>MODULE_LICENSE("MIT");
> 
> which I understand does *not* grant access to GPL symbols. So I guess we'd
> have to switch over to "MIT/GPL", if I understand correctly, in order to be
> all correct here.

You need to write this as:
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
for the linker to handle this properly as that is the string it is
looking for.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL status

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: John Hubbard 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
> I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
> Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
> firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
> kref_put routines, because when designing some
> recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
> on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.

MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.

As all of the previous kref functions were in a GPL-only header file,
and included directly that way, they were already GPL-only symbols, so
there really was no change here except now the linker checks them.  If
you have questions about using inline GPL-only functions from a .h file,
in a non-GPL codebase, please consult your corporate lawyer to get
clarification.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL status

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: John Hubbard 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
> I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
> Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
> firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
> kref_put routines, because when designing some
> recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
> on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.

MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.

As all of the previous kref functions were in a GPL-only header file,
and included directly that way, they were already GPL-only symbols, so
there really was no change here except now the linker checks them.  If
you have questions about using inline GPL-only functions from a .h file,
in a non-GPL codebase, please consult your corporate lawyer to get
clarification.

thanks,

greg k-h