Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 04:03:43PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > +++ linux/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c 2005-06-28 > > 15:20:04.363963991 -0700 > > @@ -0,0 +1,708 @@ > > +/* > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Topspin Communications. All rights reserved. > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Cisco Systems. All rights reserved. > > + * > > + * This software is available to you under a choice of one of two > > + * licenses. You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU > > + * General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file > > + * COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the > > + * OpenIB.org BSD license below: > > Ok, I've complained about this before, but due to the fact that you are > calling EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() only functions in this code, the ability for > it for someone to use the BSD license on it in the future, is pretty > much impossible, right? This does seem odd. If the goal is kernel inclusion, and the kernel is GPL, seems like this license boilerplate should now change. It makes no real sense otherwise, as far as I can tell. ron ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:12:09AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:13:22PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:27:09PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 04:03:43PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > > +++ linux/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c 2005-06-28 > > > > 15:20:04.363963991 -0700 > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,708 @@ > > > > +/* > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Topspin Communications. All rights reserved. > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Cisco Systems. All rights reserved. > > > > + * > > > > + * This software is available to you under a choice of one of two > > > > + * licenses. You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU > > > > + * General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file > > > > + * COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the > > > > + * OpenIB.org BSD license below: > > > > > > Ok, I've complained about this before, but due to the fact that you are > > > calling EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() only functions in this code, the ability for > > > it for someone to use the BSD license on it in the future, is pretty > > > much impossible, right? > > > > Only if someone tries to use it under a BSD license, strips off the GPL > > notices, and then builds it against *Linux*. > > Exactly, that's my point. It's pretty useless, and if you are going to > build this code for another OS, well, that's going to be a tough job :) > > > If linux-kernel is going to be that fascist about licensing, let's > > please clean up all the binary firmware blobs in header files first. > > I'm not being "fascist", I'm just saying it's pretty pointless to try to > dual license this code, that's all. Ahh.. I think the point of the dual-license is that there is a lot of non linux-specific Infiniband code that will (hopefully) be usefull on other platforms where a BSD license might be more usefull. If for some reason I decided I wanted to run MacOSX, I would at least want to be running the OpenIB infiniband stack, and not some proprietary module. Does anyone have some nice scripts to audit for useage of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL only functions? Maybe it's worth trying to clean up the code to clearly deliniate what depends on GPL functions and what doesn't. ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:13:22PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:27:09PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 04:03:43PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > +++ linux/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c 2005-06-28 > > > 15:20:04.363963991 -0700 > > > @@ -0,0 +1,708 @@ > > > +/* > > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Topspin Communications. All rights reserved. > > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Cisco Systems. All rights reserved. > > > + * > > > + * This software is available to you under a choice of one of two > > > + * licenses. You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU > > > + * General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file > > > + * COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the > > > + * OpenIB.org BSD license below: > > > > Ok, I've complained about this before, but due to the fact that you are > > calling EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() only functions in this code, the ability for > > it for someone to use the BSD license on it in the future, is pretty > > much impossible, right? > > Only if someone tries to use it under a BSD license, strips off the GPL > notices, and then builds it against *Linux*. Exactly, that's my point. It's pretty useless, and if you are going to build this code for another OS, well, that's going to be a tough job :) > If linux-kernel is going to be that fascist about licensing, let's > please clean up all the binary firmware blobs in header files first. I'm not being "fascist", I'm just saying it's pretty pointless to try to dual license this code, that's all. thanks, greg k-h ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:27:09PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 04:03:43PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > +++ linux/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c 2005-06-28 > > 15:20:04.363963991 -0700 > > @@ -0,0 +1,708 @@ > > +/* > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Topspin Communications. All rights reserved. > > + * Copyright (c) 2005 Cisco Systems. All rights reserved. > > + * > > + * This software is available to you under a choice of one of two > > + * licenses. You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU > > + * General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file > > + * COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the > > + * OpenIB.org BSD license below: > > Ok, I've complained about this before, but due to the fact that you are > calling EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() only functions in this code, the ability for > it for someone to use the BSD license on it in the future, is pretty > much impossible, right? Only if someone tries to use it under a BSD license, strips off the GPL notices, and then builds it against *Linux*. If linux-kernel is going to be that fascist about licensing, let's please clean up all the binary firmware blobs in header files first. It seems reasonable to me that distribution and modification of the *source code* can be under either license. But as soon as you build a binary agaist the linux kernel, the binary is irrevocably GPL licensed. -- Troy Benjegerdes'da hozer'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Somone asked my why I work on this free (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/) software stuff and not get a real job. Charles Shultz had the best answer: "Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Shultz ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 17:27 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Ok, I've complained about this before, but due to the fact that you are > calling EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() only functions in this code, the ability for > it for someone to use the BSD license on it in the future, is pretty > much impossible, right? No, only to call these functions from BSD-only (or other licensed) modules. > Wasn't the openib group going to drop this horrible license, or are they > still insisting on porting this to other operating systems? I don't think we need to drop this license. What is the harm? At some point, Sun may want OpenSolaris to use OpenIB. Or what if the Darwin folks decide to create a port? Don't worry: the OpenIB Windows work is done in a completely different repository with a completely different code base because Microsoft was scared of code that ever *was* GPL, even if a BSD-only fork was created. The bylaws of OpenIB.org require that all code hosted and developed under our auspices be (at least) BSD. I don't want it to happen, but if the code in Linux chooses one license (GPL) and not both, then we won't be able to accept patches back that come in through the mainline kernel. -tduffy signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
