* Re: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
[not found] ` <2977287.v5rPGuGa1n@merkaba>
@ 2019-02-11 22:55 ` Jens Axboe
2019-02-12 6:26 ` Bug#919356: " Ben Finney
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2019-02-11 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Steigerwald, Domenico Andreoli
Cc: Kristian Fiskerstrand, Ben Finney, Nadia Yvette Chambers,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, 919356, debian-legal, linux-kernel,
Jens Axboe
On 2/11/19 3:50 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Adding in axboe@kernel.dk, as I am not sure whether the oracle.com address
> from Jens is actually valid / up to date.
>
> Domenico Andreoli - 11.02.19, 08:22:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:08:32AM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> >
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With kind regards
>
> Martin Steigerwald •
> Proact Deutschland GmbH
>
> Trainer
>
> Telefon: *+49 911 30999 0* <tel:+49%20911%2030999%200> •
> Fax: *+49 911 30999 99* <tel:>
>
> Südwestpark 43 •
> 90449 Nürnberg •
> Germany
>
> *Martin.Steigerwald@proact.de* <mailto:Martin.Steigerwald@proact.de> •
> *www.proact.de* <https://www.proact.de/>
>
>
> Amtsgericht Nürnberg
> •
> HRB 18320
>
> Geschäftsführer:
> Oliver Kügow •
> Richard Müller •
> Jakob Høholdt
> •
> Peter Mikael Javestad
>
>
> – Delivering Business Agility –
>
>
>
> On 1/23/19 9:50 AM, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>> > > Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes:
>> > >> Domenico Andreoli <cavok@debian.org> writes:
>> [...]
>>
>> > >>> the only knot left is now the license of hash.h
>> > >>>
>> > >>> This file is also present in the kernel [0] with an updated copyright
>> > >>> but still without license.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > >> To know that work (that file) is free software, we need a clear grant
>> > >> of
>> > >> some specific license, for that work.
>> > >>
>> > >> If the work is not free, it would be incorrect to have the work in
>> > >> Debian.
>> > >
>> > > Is it possible that for the kernel it is instead correct because it is,
>> > > as whole, covered by its COPYING?
>> > >
>> > >> Alternatives, for complying with the Debian Free Software Guidelines
>> > >> with
>> > >> this package, include:
>> > >>
>> > >> * Find a credible grant of license under some GPL-compatible free
>> > >>
>> > >> license to that exact file. Document that explicit grant in the
>> > >> Debian
>> > >> package. This demonstrates the work is DFSG-free.
>> > >>
>> > >> * Convince ???dwarves-dfsg??? upstream to replace that file with a
>> > >> different> >>
>> > >> implementation (I don't know whether such an implementation exists)
>> > >> under a license compatible with the same version of GNU GPL. Document
>> > >> that explicit grant in the Debian package. This demonstrates the
>> > >> modified work is DFSG-free.
>> > >>
>> > >> * Replace that file in Debian only, with a different implementation as
>> > >>
>> > >> above. Document that explicit grant in the Debian package. This
>> > >> demonstrates the modified Debian package is DFSG-free.
>> > >>
>> > >> * Move the work to the ???non-free??? area.
>> > >>
>> > >> * Remove the work altogether.
>> > >>
>> > >> Those are in descending order of (my recommended) preference.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > It was [pointed out] by one of our license group that [hash.h] is the
>> > same that has a GPL-2+ in [fio] which has a signed-off-by.
>> >
>> > References:
>> > [pointed out]
>> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/677586#c1
>> >
>> > [hash.h]
>> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/fio.git/commit/hash.
>> > h?id=bdc7211e190482f0c17c109a0d90834a6611be1c
>> Yes, the Signed-off-by is from Jens Axboe (in CC) but he's not the
>> original author, I guess he just copied the file as Arnaldo did. The
>> file he committed has not any reference to the license.
>>
>> > [fio]
>> > https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/f/fio/fio_3.12-2_co
>> > pyright
>> I'm afraid that this entry in wrong. I'll seek confirmation with Martin
>> Steigerwald.
>
> Which entry to you refer to? I assume the one about hash.h.
>
> Well the file has in its header:
>
> /* Fast hashing routine for a long.
> (C) 2002 William Lee Irwin III, IBM */
>
> /*
> * Knuth recommends primes in approximately golden ratio to the maximum
> * integer representable by a machine word for multiplicative hashing.
> * Chuck Lever verified the effectiveness of this technique:
> * http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-00-1.pdf
> *
> * These primes are chosen to be bit-sparse, that is operations on
> * them can use shifts and additions instead of multiplications for
> * machines where multiplications are slow.
> */
>
> It has been quite a while ago. I bet back then I did not regard this as
> license information since it does not specify a license. Thus I assumed it to
> be GPL-2 as the other files which have no license boiler plate. I.e.: Check file
> is it has different license, if not, then assume it has license as specified in
> COPYING.
>
> Not specifying a license can however also mean in this context that it has no
> license as the file contains copyright information from another author.
>
> Of course I can update copyright file in case my conclusion from a long time
> ago was wrong.
>
> Jens?
Right, if nothing else is noted, it's GPL v2.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
[not found] ` <2977287.v5rPGuGa1n@merkaba>
2019-02-11 22:55 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2019-02-12 6:26 ` Ben Finney
2019-02-12 6:27 ` Ben Finney
2019-02-12 6:27 ` Ben Finney
3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Ben Finney @ 2019-02-12 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Steigerwald
Cc: Domenico Andreoli, 919356, Kristian Fiskerstrand, Ben Finney,
Nadia Yvette Chambers, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, debian-legal,
linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Jens Axboe
Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald@proact.de> writes:
> Well the file has in its header:
>
> /* Fast hashing routine for a long.
> (C) 2002 William Lee Irwin III, IBM */
>
> /*
> * Knuth recommends primes in approximately golden ratio to the maximum
> * integer representable by a machine word for multiplicative hashing.
> * Chuck Lever verified the effectiveness of this technique:
> * http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-00-1.pdf
> *
> * These primes are chosen to be bit-sparse, that is operations on
> * them can use shifts and additions instead of multiplications for
> * machines where multiplications are slow.
> */
>
> It has been quite a while ago. I bet back then I did not regard this
> as license information since it does not specify a license. Thus I
> assumed it to be GPL-2 as the other files which have no license boiler
> plate. I.e.: Check file is it has different license, if not, then
> assume it has license as specified in COPYING.
>
> Not specifying a license can however also mean in this context that it
> has no license as the file contains copyright information from another
> author.
If a work (even one file) “has no license”, that means no special
permissions are granted and normal copyright applies: All rights
reserved, i.e. not redistributable. So, no license is grounds to
consider a work non-free and non-redistributable.
If, on the other hand, the file is to be free software, there would need
to be a clear grant of some free software license to that work.
Given the confusion over this file, I would consider it a significant
risk to just assume we have GPLv2 permissions without being told that
explicitly by the copyright holder. Rather, the reason we are seeking a
clearly-granted free license for this one file, is because we are trying
to replace a probably non-free file with the same code in it.
It seems we need to keep looking, and in the meantime assume we have no
free license in this file.
--
\ “If the desire to kill and the opportunity to kill came always |
`\ together, who would escape hanging?” —Mark Twain, _Following |
_o__) the Equator_ |
Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
[not found] ` <2977287.v5rPGuGa1n@merkaba>
2019-02-11 22:55 ` Jens Axboe
2019-02-12 6:26 ` Bug#919356: " Ben Finney
@ 2019-02-12 6:27 ` Ben Finney
2019-02-12 6:27 ` Ben Finney
3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Ben Finney @ 2019-02-12 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Steigerwald
Cc: Domenico Andreoli, 919356, Kristian Fiskerstrand, Ben Finney,
Nadia Yvette Chambers, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, debian-legal,
linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Jens Axboe
Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald@proact.de> writes:
> Well the file has in its header:
>
> /* Fast hashing routine for a long.
> (C) 2002 William Lee Irwin III, IBM */
>
> /*
> * Knuth recommends primes in approximately golden ratio to the maximum
> * integer representable by a machine word for multiplicative hashing.
> * Chuck Lever verified the effectiveness of this technique:
> * http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-00-1.pdf
> *
> * These primes are chosen to be bit-sparse, that is operations on
> * them can use shifts and additions instead of multiplications for
> * machines where multiplications are slow.
> */
>
> It has been quite a while ago. I bet back then I did not regard this
> as license information since it does not specify a license. Thus I
> assumed it to be GPL-2 as the other files which have no license boiler
> plate. I.e.: Check file is it has different license, if not, then
> assume it has license as specified in COPYING.
>
> Not specifying a license can however also mean in this context that it
> has no license as the file contains copyright information from another
> author.
If a work (even one file) “has no license”, that means no special
permissions are granted and normal copyright applies: All rights
reserved, i.e. not redistributable. So, no license is grounds to
consider a work non-free and non-redistributable.
If, on the other hand, the file is to be free software, there would need
to be a clear grant of some free software license to that work.
Given the confusion over this file, I would consider it a significant
risk to just assume we have GPLv2 permissions without being told that
explicitly by the copyright holder. Rather, the reason we are seeking a
clearly-granted free license for this one file, is because we are trying
to replace a probably non-free file with the same code in it.
It seems we need to keep looking, and in the meantime assume we have no
free license in this file.
--
\ “If the desire to kill and the opportunity to kill came always |
`\ together, who would escape hanging?” —Mark Twain, _Following |
_o__) the Equator_ |
Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
[not found] ` <2977287.v5rPGuGa1n@merkaba>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2019-02-12 6:27 ` Ben Finney
@ 2019-02-12 6:27 ` Ben Finney
2019-02-12 16:16 ` Jens Axboe
2019-02-12 20:36 ` Martin Steigerwald
3 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Ben Finney @ 2019-02-12 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Steigerwald
Cc: Domenico Andreoli, 919356, Kristian Fiskerstrand, Ben Finney,
Nadia Yvette Chambers, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, debian-legal,
linux-kernel, Jens Axboe, Jens Axboe
Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald@proact.de> writes:
> Well the file has in its header:
>
> /* Fast hashing routine for a long.
> (C) 2002 William Lee Irwin III, IBM */
>
> /*
> * Knuth recommends primes in approximately golden ratio to the maximum
> * integer representable by a machine word for multiplicative hashing.
> * Chuck Lever verified the effectiveness of this technique:
> * http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-00-1.pdf
> *
> * These primes are chosen to be bit-sparse, that is operations on
> * them can use shifts and additions instead of multiplications for
> * machines where multiplications are slow.
> */
>
> It has been quite a while ago. I bet back then I did not regard this
> as license information since it does not specify a license. Thus I
> assumed it to be GPL-2 as the other files which have no license boiler
> plate. I.e.: Check file is it has different license, if not, then
> assume it has license as specified in COPYING.
>
> Not specifying a license can however also mean in this context that it
> has no license as the file contains copyright information from another
> author.
If a work (even one file) “has no license”, that means no special
permissions are granted and normal copyright applies: All rights
reserved, i.e. not redistributable. So, no license is grounds to
consider a work non-free and non-redistributable.
If, on the other hand, the file is to be free software, there would need
to be a clear grant of some free software license to that work.
Given the confusion over this file, I would consider it a significant
risk to just assume we have GPLv2 permissions without being told that
explicitly by the copyright holder. Rather, the reason we are seeking a
clearly-granted free license for this one file, is because we are trying
to replace a probably non-free file with the same code in it.
It seems we need to keep looking, and in the meantime assume we have no
free license in this file.
--
\ “If the desire to kill and the opportunity to kill came always |
`\ together, who would escape hanging?” —Mark Twain, _Following |
_o__) the Equator_ |
Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
2019-02-12 6:27 ` Ben Finney
@ 2019-02-12 16:16 ` Jens Axboe
2019-02-12 17:16 ` [PATCH] Add the SPDX header to include/linux/hash.h Domenico Andreoli
` (2 more replies)
2019-02-12 20:36 ` Martin Steigerwald
1 sibling, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2019-02-12 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Finney, Martin Steigerwald
Cc: Domenico Andreoli, 919356, Kristian Fiskerstrand,
Nadia Yvette Chambers, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, debian-legal,
linux-kernel, Jens Axboe
On 2/11/19 11:27 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald@proact.de> writes:
>
>> Well the file has in its header:
>>
>> /* Fast hashing routine for a long.
>> (C) 2002 William Lee Irwin III, IBM */
>>
>> /*
>> * Knuth recommends primes in approximately golden ratio to the maximum
>> * integer representable by a machine word for multiplicative hashing.
>> * Chuck Lever verified the effectiveness of this technique:
>> * http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-00-1.pdf
>> *
>> * These primes are chosen to be bit-sparse, that is operations on
>> * them can use shifts and additions instead of multiplications for
>> * machines where multiplications are slow.
>> */
>>
>> It has been quite a while ago. I bet back then I did not regard this
>> as license information since it does not specify a license. Thus I
>> assumed it to be GPL-2 as the other files which have no license boiler
>> plate. I.e.: Check file is it has different license, if not, then
>> assume it has license as specified in COPYING.
>>
>> Not specifying a license can however also mean in this context that it
>> has no license as the file contains copyright information from another
>> author.
>
> If a work (even one file) “has no license”, that means no special
> permissions are granted and normal copyright applies: All rights
> reserved, i.e. not redistributable. So, no license is grounds to
> consider a work non-free and non-redistributable.
>
> If, on the other hand, the file is to be free software, there would need
> to be a clear grant of some free software license to that work.
>
> Given the confusion over this file, I would consider it a significant
> risk to just assume we have GPLv2 permissions without being told that
> explicitly by the copyright holder. Rather, the reason we are seeking a
> clearly-granted free license for this one file, is because we are trying
> to replace a probably non-free file with the same code in it.
>
> It seems we need to keep looking, and in the meantime assume we have no
> free license in this file.
FWIW, fio.c includes the following mention:
* The license below covers all files distributed with fio unless otherwise
* noted in the file itself.
followed by the GPL v2 license. I'll go through and add SPDX headers to
everything to avoid wasting anymore time on this nonsense.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [PATCH] Add the SPDX header to include/linux/hash.h
2019-02-12 16:16 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2019-02-12 17:16 ` Domenico Andreoli
2019-02-12 20:34 ` Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h Martin Steigerwald
2019-02-12 22:08 ` Ben Finney
2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Domenico Andreoli @ 2019-02-12 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Francesco Fusco, George Spelvin,
Hannes Frederic Sowa, Ian Campbell, Jay Vosburgh, Jens Axboe,
Linus Torvalds, Masami Hiramatsu, Matthew Wilcox,
Nadia Yvette Chambers, Pavel Emelyanov
From: Domenico Andreoli <domenico.andreoli@linux.com>
It is unlikely that who contributes to this file is unaware of the kernel
licensing but bringing the license statement into the file itself makes
it properly reusable in different contexts.
CC: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
CC: Francesco Fusco <ffusco@redhat.com>
CC: George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net>
CC: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CC: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
CC: Nadia Yvette Chambers <nyc@holomorphy.com>
CC: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Signed-off-by: Domenico Andreoli <domenico.andreoli@linux.com>
---
include/linux/hash.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Index: b/include/linux/hash.h
===================================================================
--- a/include/linux/hash.h
+++ b/include/linux/hash.h
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+
#ifndef _LINUX_HASH_H
#define _LINUX_HASH_H
/* Fast hashing routine for ints, longs and pointers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
2019-02-12 16:16 ` Jens Axboe
2019-02-12 17:16 ` [PATCH] Add the SPDX header to include/linux/hash.h Domenico Andreoli
@ 2019-02-12 20:34 ` Martin Steigerwald
2019-02-12 22:08 ` Ben Finney
2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Martin Steigerwald @ 2019-02-12 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: debian-legal
Cc: Jens Axboe, Ben Finney, Martin Steigerwald, Domenico Andreoli,
919356, Kristian Fiskerstrand, Nadia Yvette Chambers,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe
Jens Axboe - 12.02.19, 17:16:
> On 2/11/19 11:27 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald@proact.de> writes:
> >> Well the file has in its header:
> >>
> >> /* Fast hashing routine for a long.
> >>
> >> (C) 2002 William Lee Irwin III, IBM */
> >>
> >> /*
> >>
> >> * Knuth recommends primes in approximately golden ratio to the
> >> maximum * integer representable by a machine word for
> >> multiplicative hashing. * Chuck Lever verified the effectiveness
> >> of this technique:
> >> * http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-00-1.pdf
> >> *
> >> * These primes are chosen to be bit-sparse, that is operations on
> >> * them can use shifts and additions instead of multiplications for
> >> * machines where multiplications are slow.
> >> */
> >>
> >> It has been quite a while ago. I bet back then I did not regard
> >> this
> >> as license information since it does not specify a license. Thus I
> >> assumed it to be GPL-2 as the other files which have no license
> >> boiler plate. I.e.: Check file is it has different license, if
> >> not, then assume it has license as specified in COPYING.
> >>
> >> Not specifying a license can however also mean in this context that
> >> it has no license as the file contains copyright information from
> >> another author.
> >
> > If a work (even one file) “has no license”, that means no special
> > permissions are granted and normal copyright applies: All rights
> > reserved, i.e. not redistributable. So, no license is grounds to
> > consider a work non-free and non-redistributable.
> >
> > If, on the other hand, the file is to be free software, there would
> > need to be a clear grant of some free software license to that
> > work.
> >
> > Given the confusion over this file, I would consider it a
> > significant
> > risk to just assume we have GPLv2 permissions without being told
> > that
> > explicitly by the copyright holder. Rather, the reason we are
> > seeking a clearly-granted free license for this one file, is
> > because we are trying to replace a probably non-free file with the
> > same code in it.
> >
> > It seems we need to keep looking, and in the meantime assume we have
> > no free license in this file.
>
> FWIW, fio.c includes the following mention:
>
> * The license below covers all files distributed with fio unless
> otherwise * noted in the file itself.
>
> followed by the GPL v2 license. I'll go through and add SPDX headers
> to everything to avoid wasting anymore time on this nonsense.
Thank you, Jens, for settling this. I did not remember that one. It may
very well be that I have seen this note as I initially packaged fio as my
first package for Debian about 10 years ago.
I forwarded your mail and the one from Domenico with the SPDX patch to
Debian bug
#922112 fio: hash.h is not DFSG compliant
https://bugs.debian.org/922112
which I closed before as you told already that hash.c is GPL-2.
Thanks,
--
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
2019-02-12 16:16 ` Jens Axboe
2019-02-12 17:16 ` [PATCH] Add the SPDX header to include/linux/hash.h Domenico Andreoli
2019-02-12 20:34 ` Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h Martin Steigerwald
@ 2019-02-12 22:08 ` Ben Finney
2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Ben Finney @ 2019-02-12 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe
Cc: Ben Finney, Martin Steigerwald, Domenico Andreoli, 919356,
Kristian Fiskerstrand, Nadia Yvette Chambers,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, debian-legal, linux-kernel, Jens Axboe
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
> On 2/11/19 11:27 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > If, on the other hand, the file is to be free software, there would need
> > to be a clear grant of some free software license to that work.
>
> FWIW, fio.c includes the following mention:
>
> * The license below covers all files distributed with fio unless otherwise
> * noted in the file itself.
>
> followed by the GPL v2 license.
Great! That does appear to be a positive assertion from the copyright
holder, that we have a grant to use that work under GPLv2.
That written grant of license can be used in the Debian package to
demonstrate our license to the work.
> I'll go through and add SPDX headers to everything to avoid wasting
> anymore time on this nonsense.
Not necessary from my point of view for this specific case, because we
have the clear explicit grant of license. Don't let me stop you from
doing the good work of documenting more clearly :-)
--
\ “Come on Milhouse, there’s no such thing as a soul! It’s just |
`\ something they made up to scare kids, like the Boogie Man or |
_o__) Michael Jackson.” —Bart, _The Simpsons_ |
Ben Finney
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
2019-02-12 6:27 ` Ben Finney
2019-02-12 16:16 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2019-02-12 20:36 ` Martin Steigerwald
1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Martin Steigerwald @ 2019-02-12 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Finney, Martin Steigerwald
Cc: Domenico Andreoli, 919356, Kristian Fiskerstrand,
Nadia Yvette Chambers, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, debian-legal,
linux-kernel, Jens Axboe
On 2/11/19 11:27 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald@proact.de> writes:
>
>> Well the file has in its header:
>>
>> /* Fast hashing routine for a long.
>> (C) 2002 William Lee Irwin III, IBM */
>>
>> /*
>> * Knuth recommends primes in approximately golden ratio to the
maximum
>> * integer representable by a machine word for multiplicative
hashing.
>> * Chuck Lever verified the effectiveness of this technique:
>> * http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-00-1.pdf
>> *
>> * These primes are chosen to be bit-sparse, that is operations on
>> * them can use shifts and additions instead of multiplications for
>> * machines where multiplications are slow.
>> */
>>
>> It has been quite a while ago. I bet back then I did not regard this
>> as license information since it does not specify a license. Thus I
>> assumed it to be GPL-2 as the other files which have no license boiler
>> plate. I.e.: Check file is it has different license, if not, then
>> assume it has license as specified in COPYING.
>>
>> Not specifying a license can however also mean in this context that
it
>> has no license as the file contains copyright information from another
>> author.
>
> If a work (even one file) “has no license”, that means no special
> permissions are granted and normal copyright applies: All rights
> reserved, i.e. not redistributable. So, no license is grounds to
> consider a work non-free and non-redistributable.
>
> If, on the other hand, the file is to be free software, there would
need
> to be a clear grant of some free software license to that work.
>
> Given the confusion over this file, I would consider it a significant
> risk to just assume we have GPLv2 permissions without being told that
> explicitly by the copyright holder. Rather, the reason we are seeking
a
> clearly-granted free license for this one file, is because we are
trying
> to replace a probably non-free file with the same code in it.
>
> It seems we need to keep looking, and in the meantime assume we have
no
> free license in this file.
FWIW, fio.c includes the following mention:
* The license below covers all files distributed with fio unless
otherwise
* noted in the file itself.
followed by the GPL v2 license. I'll go through and add SPDX headers to
everything to avoid wasting anymore time on this nonsense.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread