Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Well, fortunately this has turned out to be a non-issue. I just went to www.infinibandta.org and the 1.2 spec is available for download. http://www.infinibandta.org/specs/register/publicspec/vol1r1_2.zip http://www.infinibandta.org/specs/register/publicspec/vol2r1_2.zip Roland Dreier wrote: Roland> it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel Roland> contains a lot of code written to specs available only Roland> under NDA (and even reverse-engineered code where specs Roland> are completely unavailable), I don't think the expense Roland> should be an issue. Francois> One can say good bye to peer review. Yes and no. Certainly people without specs can't review spec compliance, but review for coding style, locking bugs, etc. is if anything more valuable. Thanks, Roland ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
At 11:27 AM 10/11/2004, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Krause wrote: > Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to any > IP contained within the specifications or on the technologies that > surround the specification. The change in spec cost, while clearly > unfortunate, has no impact on the IP rights. IP rights are defined by > the IBTA membership agreement (just like they are for PCI and any number > of other technologies used within the industry). If you want to > implement a technology, then you have to be a member of the appropriate > organization and agree to the same industry-wide terms that others do. > Hence, this problem is not IB-specific but a fact of life within the > industry. funny, I don't recall these problems with Ethernet. IEEE requires RAND licensing by companies; it does not license the technology to individuals. So the same problems exist for Ethernet as it does for IB as it does for many technologies. > Again, this is true of many technologies not just IB. For example, if a > company has patents on PCI Express and someone implements a device / > chipset / whatever and they are not part of the PCI-SIG, then they can > be subject to different terms than someone who is a member of the > PCI-SIG. In both cases, the access to specs, etc. has nothing to do > with IP licensing. sorry, I think about protocol software differently than chips. Maybe I'm thinking incorrectly here. There are software patents in all of these protocol off-load technologies just like there are hardware patents. As people start to use embedded processors for various communication workloads, the line between software and hardware patents will blur even further. Mike ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Krause wrote: > Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to any > IP contained within the specifications or on the technologies that > surround the specification. The change in spec cost, while clearly > unfortunate, has no impact on the IP rights. IP rights are defined by > the IBTA membership agreement (just like they are for PCI and any number > of other technologies used within the industry). If you want to > implement a technology, then you have to be a member of the appropriate > organization and agree to the same industry-wide terms that others do. > Hence, this problem is not IB-specific but a fact of life within the > industry. funny, I don't recall these problems with Ethernet. > Again, this is true of many technologies not just IB. For example, if a > company has patents on PCI Express and someone implements a device / > chipset / whatever and they are not part of the PCI-SIG, then they can > be subject to different terms than someone who is a member of the > PCI-SIG. In both cases, the access to specs, etc. has nothing to do > with IP licensing. sorry, I think about protocol software differently than chips. Maybe I'm thinking incorrectly here. ron ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
At 02:11 PM 10/9/2004, you wrote: Jeff> If there is questionable code, that is _not_ a justification Jeff> to add more. I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies are really not a good reason to keep code out of the kernel. If someone can name one patent that the IB driver stack looks like it might possibly run into, then we would have to take that very seriously. However, no one has done this here -- all we have is FUD or guilt by association or whatever you want to call it. The mere fact that the IBTA bylaws only require members license their patents under RAND terms shouldn't be an issue. If nothing else, the fact that there are hugely more non-IBTA member companies than member companies who might have patents makes the IBTA bylaws almost a moot point. It isn't a numbers game when it comes to the law. For what its worth, I know of at least five companies shipping IB stacks and the only patent licensing that I know of is the Microsoft SDP license, The lack of companies enforcing their patents at this time does not mean that they will not do so in the future. There are many patents in the IB specification suite. The question is whether these apply to the software stack being done within this forum. Until a company comes forward and states their intention, there is no way to tell. Not attempting any FUD here as I don't see a reason to stop development of any of a wide range of technologies that are covered by similar terms in various industry bodies. and even that is really just CYA: all Microsoft says is that they _might_ have patents that cover SDP and that they will license them at no cost to anyone who wants them; unfortunately this license is not GPL-compatible, but for proprietary stacks the zero-cost terms look fine. There are people who have looked at Microsoft's patents and concluded that none of them actually apply to SDP as specified by the IBTA. The patent office is the only one who can draw a conclusion that can be relied upon. I'd never rely upon hearsay in making a decision. Mike ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Alan> The big question seems to be about the standard itself. Are Alan> the items at issue hardware or software ? We already deal Alan> with a lot of devices that have hardware related patent Alan> pools and those by themselves don't seem to cause problems. As far as I know there are no items at issue. No one has suggested that there actually are any patents to worry about. The big complaint is just that the IBTA member companies haven't made enough promises about their patents. The OpenIB subversion repository can be checked out by anyone interested. Anyone who wants to can look the code over and look for something patent encumbered. Thanks, Roland ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
On Sad, 2004-10-09 at 22:11, Roland Dreier wrote: > I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow > questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies > are really not a good reason to keep code out of the kernel. If > someone can name one patent that the IB driver stack looks like it > might possibly run into, then we would have to take that very > seriously. However, no one has done this here -- all we have is FUD > or guilt by association or whatever you want to call it. Its called "caution". It's why nobody does innovation in the USA any more, its too dangerous to innovate. Far better to make it available as before with a blue led and a beeper. > The mere fact that the IBTA bylaws only require members license their > patents under RAND terms shouldn't be an issue. If nothing else, the > fact that there are hugely more non-IBTA member companies than member > companies who might have patents makes the IBTA bylaws almost a moot > point. The big question seems to be about the standard itself. Are the items at issue hardware or software ? We already deal with a lot of devices that have hardware related patent pools and those by themselves don't seem to cause problems. In the mean time I guess the guys down in Bristol[1] will be feeling happier and happier at the Infiniband self destruct sequence. Alan [1] Quadrics ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Jeff> If there is questionable code, that is _not_ a justification Jeff> to add more. I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies are really not a good reason to keep code out of the kernel. If someone can name one patent that the IB driver stack looks like it might possibly run into, then we would have to take that very seriously. However, no one has done this here -- all we have is FUD or guilt by association or whatever you want to call it. The mere fact that the IBTA bylaws only require members license their patents under RAND terms shouldn't be an issue. If nothing else, the fact that there are hugely more non-IBTA member companies than member companies who might have patents makes the IBTA bylaws almost a moot point. For what its worth, I know of at least five companies shipping IB stacks and the only patent licensing that I know of is the Microsoft SDP license, and even that is really just CYA: all Microsoft says is that they _might_ have patents that cover SDP and that they will license them at no cost to anyone who wants them; unfortunately this license is not GPL-compatible, but for proprietary stacks the zero-cost terms look fine. There are people who have looked at Microsoft's patents and concluded that none of them actually apply to SDP as specified by the IBTA. Thanks, Roland ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Roland> it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel Roland> contains a lot of code written to specs available only Roland> under NDA (and even reverse-engineered code where specs Roland> are completely unavailable), I don't think the expense Roland> should be an issue. Francois> One can say good bye to peer review. Yes and no. Certainly people without specs can't review spec compliance, but review for coding style, locking bugs, etc. is if anything more valuable. Thanks, Roland ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a > lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even > reverse-engineered code where specs are completely unavailable), I > don't think the expense should be an issue. One can say good bye to peer review. -- Ueimor ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Roland Dreier wrote: Jeff> Read the member agreement :) It -explicitly- does -not- Jeff> require waiving of patent claims related to any Jeff> implementation of IB. Jeff> That's different from ATA, SCSI, USB, the list goes on... Fair enough, but read the Bluetooth SIG patent agreement [1]. As far as I can tell, all it requires is that other SIG members receive a patent license. Do we need to do rm -rf net/bluetooth? IEEE only requires that patents be licensed under RAND terms (it does not even require royalty free licensing) [2]. Time for rm -rf drivers/ieee1394? As my mother would ask, would you jump off a cliff just because your friend did? If there is questionable code, that is _not_ a justification to add more. Jeff ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Greg> The "purchase a spec" agreement has changed, right? Good point. I think the right way to understand this is that the purchase agreement and the $9500 cost is intended to discourage anyone from actually buying the spec -- for the same money you can become a full IBTA member so why shell out for the spec with more restrictions? This might be counterproductive but I don't think there's anything sinister behind it. - Roland ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Jeff> Read the member agreement :) It -explicitly- does -not- Jeff> require waiving of patent claims related to any Jeff> implementation of IB. Jeff> That's different from ATA, SCSI, USB, the list goes on... Fair enough, but read the Bluetooth SIG patent agreement [1]. As far as I can tell, all it requires is that other SIG members receive a patent license. Do we need to do rm -rf net/bluetooth? IEEE only requires that patents be licensed under RAND terms (it does not even require royalty free licensing) [2]. Time for rm -rf drivers/ieee1394? The code that we have written so far is pretty standard driver code, so I have a hard time believing that the IB drivers are any more at risk than any other Linux code. There may be good and valid reasons not to merge IB drivers upstream, but I'd be very disappointed if this FUD about patents is what keeps them out. Thanks, Roland [1] https://www.bluetooth.org/foundry/sitecontent/document/Patent_and_Copyright_License_Agreement [2] http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Roland Dreier wrote: As for IP, as far as I know, there has been no change to any of the bylaws or other members agreements. If there is some specific provision that concerns you, please bring it to our attention -- the IBTA in general and the IBTA steering committee in general have been very supportive of the OpenIB effort. In fact, most of the IBTA steering commitee companies (Agilent, HP, IBM, InfiniCon, Intel, Mellanox, Sun, Topspin, and Voltaire) have been active participants in OpenIB development. I would hope we can resolve any issues relating to open source and the Linux kernel. Read the member agreement :) It -explicitly- does -not- require waiving of patent claims related to any implementation of IB. That's different from ATA, SCSI, USB, the list goes on... Jeff ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:27:14PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > The increase in cost for the spec is rather unfortunate but I think > it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a > lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even > reverse-engineered code where specs are completely unavailable), I > don't think the expense should be an issue. It isn't at all, just an odd side point. > As for IP, as far as I know, there has been no change to any of the > bylaws or other members agreements. The "purchase a spec" agreement has changed, right? > If there is some specific > provision that concerns you, please bring it to our attention -- the > IBTA in general and the IBTA steering committee in general have been > very supportive of the OpenIB effort. In fact, most of the IBTA > steering commitee companies (Agilent, HP, IBM, InfiniCon, Intel, > Mellanox, Sun, Topspin, and Voltaire) have been active participants in > OpenIB development. I would hope we can resolve any issues relating > to open source and the Linux kernel. What about the issue of not being able to use the spec for "commercial" applications? And doesn't the member agreement not cover anyone who implements the spec, and then gives that implementation to someone who is not a member? > However, I would suspect that we'll find the USB, Firewire, Bluetooth, > etc., etc. standards bodies all have very similar IP language in their > bylaws and licenses. No, the USB bylaws explicitly forbid any member company from putting in, or trying to claim any IP that is in the USB specs. That is something that makes USB quite different from IB. I haven't had the misfortune to have to go read the PCI SIG bylaws and member agreement... thanks, greg k-h ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Greg> All I know is a number of different people, from different Greg> companies are suddenly very worried about this. The fact Greg> that they don't want to comment on it in public leads me to Greg> believe that there is something behind their fears. Hmm, I haven't heard anything. I guess I'm out of the loop. Greg> One specific IBTA member has issues with the adaption of Greg> Linux, and has already done one thing to restrict a full IB Greg> implementation that would work on Linux. Microsoft is actually no longer an IBTA member. Thanks, Roland ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
The increase in cost for the spec is rather unfortunate but I think it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even reverse-engineered code where specs are completely unavailable), I don't think the expense should be an issue. As for IP, as far as I know, there has been no change to any of the bylaws or other members agreements. If there is some specific provision that concerns you, please bring it to our attention -- the IBTA in general and the IBTA steering committee in general have been very supportive of the OpenIB effort. In fact, most of the IBTA steering commitee companies (Agilent, HP, IBM, InfiniCon, Intel, Mellanox, Sun, Topspin, and Voltaire) have been active participants in OpenIB development. I would hope we can resolve any issues relating to open source and the Linux kernel. However, I would suspect that we'll find the USB, Firewire, Bluetooth, etc., etc. standards bodies all have very similar IP language in their bylaws and licenses. Thanks, Roland ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:13:07PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > Even the PCI-SIG requires you to pay for the spec. > > I know that, almost all groups do. Although $9500 does seem a bit steep > for spec prices :) Especially as (wrt PCISIG at least) the mindshare books contain almost exactly the same information for around $50. In fact, I find those books are much better presented than the actual specs. Dave ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 19:13, Greg KH wrote: > All I know is a number of different people, from different companies are > suddenly very worried about this. The fact that they don't want to > comment on it in public leads me to believe that there is something > behind their fears. Sounds like our favorite software company's FUD squad has been busy. Lee ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:49:16PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a > > target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there, > > but the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go > > after non-IBTA members who touch IB code[3]. > > Greg I see nothing to back up the idea that IBTA intends to go after > non-members. I simply see a disclaimer of warranty, and I see wording > by your anonymous source that restates a disclaimer of warranty. All I know is a number of different people, from different companies are suddenly very worried about this. The fact that they don't want to comment on it in public leads me to believe that there is something behind their fears. > Until I see something more to back this up I do not see a problem. In > fact I see infiniband prices dropping, and competition increasing. > The drivers off of openib.org look like they are a good start at > making a sane linux implementation. It is a good start. And as all OpenIB members are also IBTA members, I am asking for the group's position as to this change. > Even the PCI-SIG requires you to pay for the spec. I know that, almost all groups do. Although $9500 does seem a bit steep for spec prices :) > I agree it would be suicidally insane for the infiniband trade > association to go after a linux stack, as it appears that a large > portion of the infiniband users are currently running linux. One specific IBTA member has issues with the adaption of Linux, and has already done one thing to restrict a full IB implementation that would work on Linux. And as for insane, have you ever tried to actually read that spec? :) thanks, greg k-h ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Eric W. Biederman wrote: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there, but the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go after non-IBTA members who touch IB code[3]. Greg I see nothing to back up the idea that IBTA intends to go after non-members. I simply see a disclaimer of warranty, and I see wording by your anonymous source that restates a disclaimer of warranty. Well, let's not rely on anonymous sources and go straight to the web site, shall we? Ordering copies of the spec, for non-members: http://www.infinibandta.org/specs/How_to_Order_IBTA_Specifications.pdf Key note: use of spec is only granted for NON-COMMERCIAL use Now, let's look at the membership agreement for IBTA: http://www.infinibandta.org/meminfo/mem-agreement.pdf Key note: The point is made repeatedly that there are no patent grants simply by being a member. ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a > target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there, > but the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go > after non-IBTA members who touch IB code[3]. Greg I see nothing to back up the idea that IBTA intends to go after non-members. I simply see a disclaimer of warranty, and I see wording by your anonymous source that restates a disclaimer of warranty. Until I see something more to back this up I do not see a problem. In fact I see infiniband prices dropping, and competition increasing. The drivers off of openib.org look like they are a good start at making a sane linux implementation. Even the PCI-SIG requires you to pay for the spec. I agree it would be suicidally insane for the infiniband trade association to go after a linux stack, as it appears that a large portion of the infiniband users are currently running linux. Given the vendors I have seen working on hardware and the vendors who are a part of the infiniband trade association there does appear to be a certain amount of disconnect between the two. So this may be an attempt to bring all of the interested parties together. Eric ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
At 01:22 PM 10/8/2004, Greg KH wrote: Hi all, Enough people have been asking me about this lately, that I thought I would just bring it up publicly here. It seems that the Infiniband group (IBTA) has changed their licensing agrement of the basic Infiniband spec. See: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18922 for more info about this. The main point that affects Linux is the fact that now, no non-member of the IBTA can implement any working Infiniband code, otherwise they might run into legal problems. As an anonymous member of a IBTA company told me: If someone downloads the spec without joining the IBTA, and proceeds to use the spec for an implementation of the IBTA spec, that person (company) runs the risk of being a target of patent infringement claims by IBTA members. Caution: I'm not a lawyer so the following discussion is just a personal opinion. Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to any IP contained within the specifications or on the technologies that surround the specification. The change in spec cost, while clearly unfortunate, has no impact on the IP rights. IP rights are defined by the IBTA membership agreement (just like they are for PCI and any number of other technologies used within the industry). If you want to implement a technology, then you have to be a member of the appropriate organization and agree to the same industry-wide terms that others do. Hence, this problem is not IB-specific but a fact of life within the industry. Another person, wanting to remain anonymous stated to me: In justification for this position people say that they are just trying to get more people to join the IBTA because they need the dues, which by coincidence are $9500 per year, and point out that some other commonly used specs are similarly made available for steep prices. I don't know one way or the other about that but this sounds a lot like the reason that we all gave ourselves for NOT including SDP in the kernel[1]. So, even if a IBTA member company creates a Linux IB implementation, and gets it into the kernel tree, any company who ships such a implementation, who is not a IBTA member, could be the target of any patent infringement claims[2]. Again, this is true of many technologies not just IB. For example, if a company has patents on PCI Express and someone implements a device / chipset / whatever and they are not part of the PCI-SIG, then they can be subject to different terms than someone who is a member of the PCI-SIG. In both cases, the access to specs, etc. has nothing to do with IP licensing. So, OpenIB group, how to you plan to address this issue? Do you all have a position as to how you think your code base can be accepted into the main kernel tree given these recent events? This problem isn't just an OpenIB issue. It is true for the IETF, PCI-SIG, USB, PCMCIA, etc. which all have technologies with varying degrees of patents. Even going beyond what is in these various industry organizations, there are also many companies who have patents on protocol off-load, OS bypass, copy avoidance, RDMA, QoS algorithms, etc. Does any subsystem implemented in or on top of Linux suddenly stop work because there is IP involved? thanks, greg k-h [1] SDP, for those who do not know, is a part of the IB spec that Microsoft has come out and stated they they currently own the patents that cover that portion of the specification, and that anyone who wants to implement it, needs to get a licensing agreement with them. Of course, that license agreement does not allow for a GPLed version of the implementation. SDP was derived from Winsocks Direct. Microsoft may have IP associated with the specification. Other companies who worked on SDP may also have IP. One does not know all of the IP that may exist in any technology until someone attempts to enforce their rights. [2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there, but the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go after non-IBTA members who touch IB code[3]. I don't see how this can be asserted. The IBTA defines the licensing requirements for member companies. It is the companies that own the IP that have to enforce their IP; the IBTA has no role in the process other than to set a level playing field for those that participate in the IBTA. This is true for other industry organizations as well. [3] An insanely stupid position to take, given the fact that any normal industry group would be very happy to actually have people use their specification, but hey, the IB people have never been know for their brilliance in the past... The same can be stated for many different technologies. The IBTA is no different than the rest of the industry and was founded using the same principles already in use in the industry at t
Re: [openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Greg KH wrote: > If someone downloads the spec without joining the IBTA, and > proceeds to use the spec for an implementation of the IBTA spec, > that person (company) runs the risk of being a target of patent > infringement claims by IBTA members. Another solid reason to write infiniband off. I keep hoping that the IB vendor crowd will stop shooting themselves in the head with such regularity, and they just won't. They just keep increasing the size of the bore. Infiniband can now be spelled a few different ways, "I2O" and "ATM" come to mind, except that "ATM" was less unsuccessful in its lifetime than IB has been so far. > In justification for this position people say that they are just > trying to get more people to join the IBTA because they need the > dues, which by coincidence are $9500 per year, and point out > that some other commonly used specs are similarly made available > for steep prices. I don't know one way or the other about that > but this sounds a lot like the reason that we all gave ourselves > for NOT including SDP in the kernel[1]. > So, OpenIB group, how to you plan to address this issue? Do you all > have a position as to how you think your code base can be accepted into > the main kernel tree given these recent events? Well, we non-vendors have no power, and it appears the vendors are determined to kill IB. This is all very discouraging. A lot of people at the Labs put a lot of work into the Infiniband openib effort, including getting money to support the software development, and it looks like we're not going to get very far if these rules stick. I am going to renew my search for non-IB solutions, I guess. It's hard to recommend this interconnect when IBTA takes this kind of action. ron ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
[openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?
Hi all, Enough people have been asking me about this lately, that I thought I would just bring it up publicly here. It seems that the Infiniband group (IBTA) has changed their licensing agrement of the basic Infiniband spec. See: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18922 for more info about this. The main point that affects Linux is the fact that now, no non-member of the IBTA can implement any working Infiniband code, otherwise they might run into legal problems. As an anonymous member of a IBTA company told me: If someone downloads the spec without joining the IBTA, and proceeds to use the spec for an implementation of the IBTA spec, that person (company) runs the risk of being a target of patent infringement claims by IBTA members. Another person, wanting to remain anonymous stated to me: In justification for this position people say that they are just trying to get more people to join the IBTA because they need the dues, which by coincidence are $9500 per year, and point out that some other commonly used specs are similarly made available for steep prices. I don't know one way or the other about that but this sounds a lot like the reason that we all gave ourselves for NOT including SDP in the kernel[1]. So, even if a IBTA member company creates a Linux IB implementation, and gets it into the kernel tree, any company who ships such a implementation, who is not a IBTA member, could be the target of any patent infringement claims[2]. So, OpenIB group, how to you plan to address this issue? Do you all have a position as to how you think your code base can be accepted into the main kernel tree given these recent events? thanks, greg k-h [1] SDP, for those who do not know, is a part of the IB spec that Microsoft has come out and stated they they currently own the patents that cover that portion of the specification, and that anyone who wants to implement it, needs to get a licensing agreement with them. Of course, that license agreement does not allow for a GPLed version of the implementation. [2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there, but the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go after non-IBTA members who touch IB code[3]. [3] An insanely stupid position to take, given the fact that any normal industry group would be very happy to actually have people use their specification, but hey, the IB people have never been know for their brilliance in the past... ___ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
