From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754051AbcEPOvc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2016 10:51:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41677 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753568AbcEPOvb (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2016 10:51:31 -0400 Subject: Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs To: Christoph Hellwig References: <743399f9-10b7-6e62-2bf4-6a8656df8a55@redhat.com> <20160516114926.GA681@lst.de> Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Doug Ledford Openpgp: id=AE6B1BDA122B23B4265B1274B826A3330E572FDD; url=pgp.mit.edu X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 10:51:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160516114926.GA681@lst.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="A62S29061q15phm6XIIrnqoCwFllxuwRB" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Mon, 16 May 2016 14:51:30 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --A62S29061q15phm6XIIrnqoCwFllxuwRB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/16/2016 07:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > [adding Linus and linux-kernel to Cc] >=20 > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:04:17PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> You submitted new files into the subsystem under GPL only license in >> contrast to the rest of the subsystem. This presents a problem. I'm = in >> the position where I need to either revert them, or I need your >> permission to make them dual license GPL/BSD to match the rest of the >> subsystem. Were you intentionally trying to make the OFED work illega= l, >> or just an oversight? >=20 > Hi Doug, >=20 > the RDMA code was developed for a GPLed driver and moved to the code, > and lots of people contributed to it under the GPL, The contributions are under the same license as the file you are modifying. So if the file you modify is dual license, then the contribution in the form of modifications to that file are also dual license unless your submissions clearly and explicitly states otherwise. See the standard definition of "Signed-off-by:" as maintained on the Linux Foundation website, which spells out that this is the case. > as they assumed > Linux code in genral is. The linux kernel as a whole is, but individual files still retain their separate copyright, they don't loose it just because they are shipped as part of the larger kernel. > =D0=86f dual-licensing is possible at all it would > require a lot of work, which I don't think is worth it. Running the RDMA code under a dual license is probably not possible. But the files that are dual licensed retain their licensure, which means someone working on BSD based system could freely interchange source code between this stack and their own. Some of the groups originally involved with the RDMA stack used to do exactly this. In the most recent past, I think some of those companies are moving away from that setup to running plain kernels (in which case their kernel is obviously under the GPL). > If you don't > want GPL code in the core rdma.ko module we can move it to a rdma-gpl.k= o > module, but that would be a little bit odd. That's somewhat of my concern, but not the primary concern. The issue here is that I feel obligated to go to the primary maintainers of several pieces of code that are under dual license and make sure that they understand what is happening here. You made some nice API additions to the core. Great. That API is under GPL only terms. OK, it's your code, do as you wish. In addition to adding the API, you then ported several upper layer drivers to your API and in the process removed the previous code from the drivers that allowed them to work without your API. In so doing, you made their code completely dependent upon your code. What used to be able to be pulled out as a complete, functional, dual licensed chunk no longer can be. I feel obligated to point this out to those code maintainers and make sure they are aware of this and specifically acknowledge it. If their fine with it, then so be it. If they would prefer to maintain their dual license nature and not be dependent on a piece that breaks that for them, then I think that's their choice to make. --=20 Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD --A62S29061q15phm6XIIrnqoCwFllxuwRB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXOd5rAAoJELgmozMOVy/dGocP/3POZPuuY7tGVeNvC2+xCnF1 7xpgmcLiMk+P/Xzw+p9vFheMy31e+ICYMmEE+BRx9mTWcy2FlapIf6QzTTATnxlM ac0yrhOHwKV7PGrmp3hWG1KFv2uiftNMOsn2isb6xQr1NiMAk97kNTKRHqRDi8Pl oDsRP+ng90i6A3zpKM7NO/W8XgRrjsMG5FMM/VX2tlY7dfzwlUS5AtsWH54xsj8V BpPY4Uy+5A5OziPM835376lUKt2XRtr7YL1e5hpj1n/Ge9oshE6hoLDF9ya1t9Xo KPYOnhVmLf2v0D/VWp47vG7FOeKqM6bb9cjUk0ym+AnkdHCSUiiIk7KWsPpp3e9L x8JveRChhFXPw70RDZ2OQcC7xVob+ejL+MpbByNjKQKuy0AGN1plSLo5oROIdD+0 KdZeKqb2Yexjdllj/GmqbL5AApSA5xPv9Ajg0nc/w3iCuRnWfJTtmdPj7P4XwVub Z2mkxBOhhy2NqGwYnS9KDhhEzS9Vy/cfWZ4kVQIlMH1nlCtBR3qLBMGKZPXPI7BZ +sKXTzSvupd+Z+PqBJmL7mC2mahRlPZ/0S3gJDQ0OgSdg0NmHOmPc8OYqllba/PO WE5FNBDTOGVoWG0PGmk9YYrS2nsBVDmYYusUCiTo6V7nwzmgsBD2DyPD4ZZhsXEl A2lEvfIL3RR4A0PSom5b =HOvk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --A62S29061q15phm6XIIrnqoCwFllxuwRB--