[PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Jason Gunthorpe]

Upon deeper analysis it seems there are two variations of the 'OpenIB.org BSD
license', I am calling them the MIT and FreeBSD variants. They differ only in
the text of the disclaimer. The MIT version is used widely as the source
license so that version should be the 'default' in the source tree, not the
FreeBSD version I had selected initially.

Retain the FreeBSD version as we will refer to it in future commits.

Elaborate the COPYING file to discuss the license situation in
more depth.

Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
---
 COPYING         |  6 ------
 COPYING.BSD     | 26 ----------------------
 COPYING.BSD_FB  | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
 COPYING.BSD_MIT | 20 +++++++++++++++++
 COPYING.md      | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 COPYING
 delete mode 100644 COPYING.BSD
 create mode 100644 COPYING.BSD_FB
 create mode 100644 COPYING.BSD_MIT
 create mode 100644 COPYING.md

I have reviewed most of the files now for copyright considerations to
make sure our licensing is in order.

This is my proposal for the top level COPYING file, and it contains a
summary of my findings on licensing.

Due to various mistakes in the past things are overly complex, I would
appreciate any patches to reduce the complexity. eg ensuring that all
files have a license reference and the removal of the sub dir COPYING
files.

It would be appreciated if those who hold the copyrights can adjust
their licenses to match the so-called 'Default Dual License', eg by
patching the remaining COPYING files to use the correct disclaimer.

Here is my first jab at simplifying:

https://github.com/jgunthorpe/rdma-plumbing/commit/079d840b102906c79ff07b7fe9d5db6bba26517c

diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
deleted file mode 100644
index ac58180e900c..000000000000
--- a/COPYING
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
-Unless otherwise stated 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 the
-OpenIB.org BSD license (see COPYING.BSD) or the GNU General Public License
-(GPL) Version 2 (see COPYING.GPL2), both included in this package.
-
-Refer to individual files for information on the copyright holders.
diff --git a/COPYING.BSD b/COPYING.BSD
deleted file mode 100644
index 59b3a397a13b..000000000000
--- a/COPYING.BSD
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,26 +0,0 @@
-		       OpenIB.org BSD license
-
-Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
-modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
-are met:
-
-  * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
-    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
-
-  * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
-    copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
-    disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
-    with the distribution.
-
-THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
-"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
-FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
-COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
-INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
-BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
-LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
-CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
-LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
-ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
-POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
diff --git a/COPYING.BSD_FB b/COPYING.BSD_FB
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..44237612faa3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/COPYING.BSD_FB
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+		   OpenIB.org BSD license (FreeBSD Variant)
+
+Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
+
+  - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
+    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+
+  - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
+    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
+    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
+
+THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
+AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
+IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
+DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
+FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
+DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
+SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
+CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
+OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
+OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
diff --git a/COPYING.BSD_MIT b/COPYING.BSD_MIT
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..a1432b6134e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/COPYING.BSD_MIT
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+		     OpenIB.org BSD license (MIT variant)
+
+Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
+
+  - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
+    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+
+  - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
+    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
+    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.
+
diff --git a/COPYING.md b/COPYING.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..edcb01af9954
--- /dev/null
+++ b/COPYING.md
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# Default Dual License
+
+Unless otherwise stated 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 the
+OpenIB.org BSD (MIT variant) license (see COPYING.BSD_MIT) or the GNU General
+Public License (GPL) Version 2 (see COPYING.GPL2), both included in this
+package.
+
+Files marked 'See COPYING file' are licensed under the above Dual License.
+
+# Other Options
+
+Individual source files may use a license different from the above Defaul Dual
+License. If a license is declared in the file then it supersedes the Default
+License.
+
+If a directory contains a COPYING file then the License from that file becomes
+the Default License for files in that directory and below.
+
+# Copyright Holders
+
+Refer to individual files for information on the copyright holders.
+
+# License Catalog (Informative, Non Binding)
+
+## Providers
+
+The following providers use a different license than the Default Dual
+License. Refer to files in each directory for details.
+
+cxbg4
+: A combination of the
+    - Default Dual License
+    - cxgb4/src/queue.h: BSD 3 clause license.
+
+hfi1verbs
+: Dual License: GPLv2 or Intel 3 clause BSD license
+
+ipathverbs
+: Dual License: GPLv2 or PathScale BSD Patent license
+
+ocrdma
+: Dual License: GPLv2 or OpenIB.org BSD (FreeBSD variant), See COPYING.BSD_FB
+
+rxe
+: A combination of the
+    - Default Dual License
+    - GPLv2 or PathScale BSD Patent license
+
+## Libraries
+
+All library compilable source code (.c and .h files) are available under the
+Default Dual License.
+
+Unmarked ancillary files may be available under a Dual License: GPLv2 or
+OpenIB.org BSD (FreeBSD variant).
+
+## Tools (iwpmd, srp_deamon, ibacm)
+
+All compilable source code (.c and .h files) are available under the Default
+Dual License.
+
+Unmarked ancillary files may be available under a Dual License: GPLv2 or
+OpenIB.org BSD (FreeBSD variant).
+
+srp_daemon/srp_daemon/srp_daemon.sh: Any one of the GPLv2, a 2 clause BSD
+license or the CPLv1.
-- 
2.7.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Leon Romanovsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9514 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:13:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Upon deeper analysis it seems there are two variations of the 'OpenIB.org BSD
> license', I am calling them the MIT and FreeBSD variants. They differ only in
> the text of the disclaimer. The MIT version is used widely as the source
> license so that version should be the 'default' in the source tree, not the
> FreeBSD version I had selected initially.
>
> Retain the FreeBSD version as we will refer to it in future commits.
>
> Elaborate the COPYING file to discuss the license situation in
> more depth.

I doubt that we have appropriate knowledge to come into meaningful
conclusion after "discussion". It is legal issue which should be
handled by relevant legal departments.

>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  COPYING         |  6 ------
>  COPYING.BSD     | 26 ----------------------
>  COPYING.BSD_FB  | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
>  COPYING.BSD_MIT | 20 +++++++++++++++++
>  COPYING.md      | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  5 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 COPYING
>  delete mode 100644 COPYING.BSD
>  create mode 100644 COPYING.BSD_FB
>  create mode 100644 COPYING.BSD_MIT
>  create mode 100644 COPYING.md
>
> I have reviewed most of the files now for copyright considerations to
> make sure our licensing is in order.
>
> This is my proposal for the top level COPYING file, and it contains a
> summary of my findings on licensing.
>
> Due to various mistakes in the past things are overly complex, I would
> appreciate any patches to reduce the complexity. eg ensuring that all
> files have a license reference and the removal of the sub dir COPYING
> files.
>
> It would be appreciated if those who hold the copyrights can adjust
> their licenses to match the so-called 'Default Dual License', eg by
> patching the remaining COPYING files to use the correct disclaimer.
>
> Here is my first jab at simplifying:
>
> https://github.com/jgunthorpe/rdma-plumbing/commit/079d840b102906c79ff07b7fe9d5db6bba26517c
>
> diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
> deleted file mode 100644
> index ac58180e900c..000000000000
> --- a/COPYING
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
> -Unless otherwise stated 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 the
> -OpenIB.org BSD license (see COPYING.BSD) or the GNU General Public License
> -(GPL) Version 2 (see COPYING.GPL2), both included in this package.
> -
> -Refer to individual files for information on the copyright holders.
> diff --git a/COPYING.BSD b/COPYING.BSD
> deleted file mode 100644
> index 59b3a397a13b..000000000000
> --- a/COPYING.BSD
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,26 +0,0 @@
> -		       OpenIB.org BSD license
> -
> -Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> -modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> -are met:
> -
> -  * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> -    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> -
> -  * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> -    copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
> -    disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
> -    with the distribution.
> -
> -THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> -"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> -LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
> -FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
> -COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> -INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
> -BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> -LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
> -CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
> -LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
> -ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
> -POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> diff --git a/COPYING.BSD_FB b/COPYING.BSD_FB
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..44237612faa3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/COPYING.BSD_FB
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +		   OpenIB.org BSD license (FreeBSD Variant)
> +
> +Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> +modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> +
> +  - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
> +    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> +
> +  - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
> +    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
> +    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> +
> +THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
> +AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> +IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
> +DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
> +FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> +DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
> +SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
> +CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
> +OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
> +OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> diff --git a/COPYING.BSD_MIT b/COPYING.BSD_MIT
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..a1432b6134e6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/COPYING.BSD_MIT
> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> +		     OpenIB.org BSD license (MIT variant)
> +
> +Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> +modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> +
> +  - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
> +    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> +
> +  - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
> +    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
> +    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> +
> +THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> +IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> +FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
> +AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
> +LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
> +OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
> +SOFTWARE.
> +
> diff --git a/COPYING.md b/COPYING.md
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..edcb01af9954
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/COPYING.md
> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> +# Default Dual License
> +
> +Unless otherwise stated 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 the
> +OpenIB.org BSD (MIT variant) license (see COPYING.BSD_MIT) or the GNU General
> +Public License (GPL) Version 2 (see COPYING.GPL2), both included in this
> +package.
> +
> +Files marked 'See COPYING file' are licensed under the above Dual License.
> +
> +# Other Options
> +
> +Individual source files may use a license different from the above Defaul Dual
> +License. If a license is declared in the file then it supersedes the Default
> +License.
> +
> +If a directory contains a COPYING file then the License from that file becomes
> +the Default License for files in that directory and below.
> +
> +# Copyright Holders
> +
> +Refer to individual files for information on the copyright holders.
> +
> +# License Catalog (Informative, Non Binding)
> +
> +## Providers
> +
> +The following providers use a different license than the Default Dual
> +License. Refer to files in each directory for details.
> +
> +cxbg4
> +: A combination of the
> +    - Default Dual License
> +    - cxgb4/src/queue.h: BSD 3 clause license.
> +
> +hfi1verbs
> +: Dual License: GPLv2 or Intel 3 clause BSD license
> +
> +ipathverbs
> +: Dual License: GPLv2 or PathScale BSD Patent license
> +
> +ocrdma
> +: Dual License: GPLv2 or OpenIB.org BSD (FreeBSD variant), See COPYING.BSD_FB
> +
> +rxe
> +: A combination of the
> +    - Default Dual License
> +    - GPLv2 or PathScale BSD Patent license
> +
> +## Libraries
> +
> +All library compilable source code (.c and .h files) are available under the
> +Default Dual License.
> +
> +Unmarked ancillary files may be available under a Dual License: GPLv2 or
> +OpenIB.org BSD (FreeBSD variant).
> +
> +## Tools (iwpmd, srp_deamon, ibacm)
> +
> +All compilable source code (.c and .h files) are available under the Default
> +Dual License.
> +
> +Unmarked ancillary files may be available under a Dual License: GPLv2 or
> +OpenIB.org BSD (FreeBSD variant).
> +
> +srp_daemon/srp_daemon/srp_daemon.sh: Any one of the GPLv2, a 2 clause BSD
> +license or the CPLv1.
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:06:55AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:13:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Upon deeper analysis it seems there are two variations of the 'OpenIB.org BSD
> > license', I am calling them the MIT and FreeBSD variants. They differ only in
> > the text of the disclaimer. The MIT version is used widely as the source
> > license so that version should be the 'default' in the source tree, not the
> > FreeBSD version I had selected initially.
> >
> > Retain the FreeBSD version as we will refer to it in future commits.
> >
> > Elaborate the COPYING file to discuss the license situation in
> > more depth.
> 
> I doubt that we have appropriate knowledge to come into meaningful
> conclusion after "discussion". It is legal issue which should be
> handled by relevant legal departments.

Hi Leon,

I think the commit message was not clear, let me try again:

[PATCH] Document copyright situation and select default license

This patch is not intended to change the copyright or license
situation of any of the original code.

Documentation is provided that identifies the various licenses we
have in the source tree.

The default license for new items after the 'Initial commit' merge is
corrected to match the majority license already in use. This is the
license we recommend all new code use. This corrects a mistake I made
in the 'Unified CMake build system' patch which selected the wrong
license file.

Also provide specific guidance on how the 18 different COPYING files
and per-file copyright headers are intended to be interpreted
within the merged tree.

=======

As you know I've sent emails to various parties on licensing issues,
as those issues are corrected we can update the tree and the copying
summary.

We've already had success correcting one mistake from Intel and
Chelsio, thank you very much to those companies.

It is important we clearly document the current situation so our
downstreams can properly distribute this code.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Hefty, Sean]

> diff --git a/COPYING.BSD_FB b/COPYING.BSD_FB
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..44237612faa3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/COPYING.BSD_FB
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +		   OpenIB.org BSD license (FreeBSD Variant)

Openib.org doesn't exist.  Can we just drop that term from the files?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 04:58:48PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > diff --git a/COPYING.BSD_FB b/COPYING.BSD_FB
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..44237612faa3
> > +++ b/COPYING.BSD_FB
> > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> > +		   OpenIB.org BSD license (FreeBSD Variant)
> 
> Openib.org doesn't exist.  Can we just drop that term from the files?

Maybe? I don't know, that is starting to go down the path that Leon
alluded to regarding getting legal advice.

That would be a different patch, IMHO.

Normally I'd say to avoid confusion it is good to stick with the
historical names, but in this case there are three things calling
themselves the openib.org bsd license, so I don't know :|

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Leon Romanovsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2342 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 09:24:12AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:06:55AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:13:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > Upon deeper analysis it seems there are two variations of the 'OpenIB.org BSD
> > > license', I am calling them the MIT and FreeBSD variants. They differ only in
> > > the text of the disclaimer. The MIT version is used widely as the source
> > > license so that version should be the 'default' in the source tree, not the
> > > FreeBSD version I had selected initially.
> > >
> > > Retain the FreeBSD version as we will refer to it in future commits.
> > >
> > > Elaborate the COPYING file to discuss the license situation in
> > > more depth.
> >
> > I doubt that we have appropriate knowledge to come with meaningful
> > conclusion after "discussion". It is legal issue which should be
> > handled by relevant legal departments.
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> I think the commit message was not clear, let me try again:
>
> [PATCH] Document copyright situation and select default license
>
> This patch is not intended to change the copyright or license
> situation of any of the original code.
>
> Documentation is provided that identifies the various licenses we
> have in the source tree.
>
> The default license for new items after the 'Initial commit' merge is
> corrected to match the majority license already in use. This is the
> license we recommend all new code use. This corrects a mistake I made
> in the 'Unified CMake build system' patch which selected the wrong
> license file.
>
> Also provide specific guidance on how the 18 different COPYING files
> and per-file copyright headers are intended to be interpreted
> within the merged tree.
>
> =======
>
> As you know I've sent emails to various parties on licensing issues,
> as those issues are corrected we can update the tree and the copying
> summary.
>
> We've already had success correcting one mistake from Intel and
> Chelsio, thank you very much to those companies.
>
> It is important we clearly document the current situation so our
> downstreams can properly distribute this code.

I sure that this question will sound dumb for you, but can we unify all
code under OFA's licenses (dual-license)? I don't feel comfortable with
this multi-license situation.

>
> Jason

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Leon Romanovsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:03:14AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 04:58:48PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > > diff --git a/COPYING.BSD_FB b/COPYING.BSD_FB
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..44237612faa3
> > > +++ b/COPYING.BSD_FB
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> > > +		   OpenIB.org BSD license (FreeBSD Variant)
> >
> > Openib.org doesn't exist.  Can we just drop that term from the files?
>
> Maybe? I don't know, that is starting to go down the path that Leon
> alluded to regarding getting legal advice.

Yeah, because Leon doesn't understand (and doesn't want to understand)
this legal crap.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

RE: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Hefty, Sean]

> > As you know I've sent emails to various parties on licensing issues,
> > as those issues are corrected we can update the tree and the copying
> > summary.
> >
> > We've already had success correcting one mistake from Intel and
> > Chelsio, thank you very much to those companies.
> >
> > It is important we clearly document the current situation so our
> > downstreams can properly distribute this code.
> 
> I sure that this question will sound dumb for you, but can we unify all
> code under OFA's licenses (dual-license)? I don't feel comfortable with
> this multi-license situation.

If this combined repo is intended to support the plumbing for the linux-rdma subsystem, then I think it must support code that is submitted under GPL only.  Much of the tradition code can remain dual-license, but new provider code, for example, should be submit-able under GPL.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 08:10:03PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:

> I sure that this question will sound dumb for you, but can we unify all
> code under OFA's licenses (dual-license)? I don't feel comfortable with
> this multi-license situation.

It is an excellent question.

To do this we would need the OFA to talk to each of the member
companies and get them to sign some kind of legal change of copyright
document. Assuming all of the member companies agree, and all the
member companies are the exhaustive copyright owners then the code can
be placed under a single uniform license.

As I understand it all OFA members were required to agree to use a
specific licensing scheme, including specific license text when they
signed the OFA membership agreement. What we are seeing here is that
the corporate legal side agreed to something but the developers made
small errors along the way, and those errors were later copied by
other developers and spread widely. So the OFA has a basis for
requests of this nature.

For instance, a legal statement from Mellanox that all code they
contributed is available under the GPLv2 or *either* MIT or FreeBSD
license varient would allow immediately placing all Mellanox
copyrighted code under the single Default License. I expect this is
what Mellanox intended to do anyhow, the fact that ibverbs and all
their providers had an error in the COPYING file is simply
an unfortunate mistake.

These sorts of license issues are typical in historical code bases. I
would say we are in pretty good shape, from what I can tell absolutely
everything is unambiguously licensed under at least the GPLv2, or a
compatible license.

Almost everything is alternatively licensed under some kind of BSD
license. The notable exception is ipathverbs and rxe. It is also
unfortunate we have so many BSD variants.

Further, almost all C code is licensed under the dual GPLv2/OpenIB.org
(MIT) license. The kernel is similar, almost all C code is using the
MIT variant. Hence my desire to make that the license for new code in
the tree.

I would say this is a pretty good result.

My ultimate suggestion is that we push the non-default copyright into
the impacted files, eg add short licenses headers to the man pages,
etc, and then delete the extraneous COPYING files once every single
file has a correct license statement. From that point we can look at
switching individual files based on the above Legal process to the
Default License, or just leave them as is - a historical quirk.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:23:29PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:

> If this combined repo is intended to support the plumbing for the
> linux-rdma subsystem, then I think it must support code that is
> submitted under GPL only.

Hum, I don't think that follows.

My expectation in the kernel is that the entire RDMA subystem and
drivers follows the overall licensing model of the kernel and does not
require userspace to follow any specific license, and certainly does
not require userspace to follow the GPLv2.

> Much of the tradition code can remain dual-license, but new provider
> code, for example, should be submit-able under GPL.

I do not support that recommendation.

The FSF has made very clear their position on GPL licensing of plugins
(see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html), and allowing a
GPLv2 only plugin or library code would break our community's promise
to our customers - that the library core is usable in any application.

It would be a complicated discussion if someone proposed a GPLv2 only
provider.

A LGPLv2-only provider would be more acceptable, and I would encourage
anyone who wishes to have the protections of the GPLv2 in their
provider to go that route. I suspect it would still be controversial.

I would prefer to see us continue with the dual license approach, and
obviously all OFA member companies have agreed to do that.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Doug Ledford]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2174 bytes --]

On 9/23/16 1:48 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:23:29PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> 
>> If this combined repo is intended to support the plumbing for the
>> linux-rdma subsystem, then I think it must support code that is
>> submitted under GPL only.
> 
> Hum, I don't think that follows.
> 
> My expectation in the kernel is that the entire RDMA subystem and
> drivers follows the overall licensing model of the kernel and does not
> require userspace to follow any specific license, and certainly does
> not require userspace to follow the GPLv2.
> 
>> Much of the tradition code can remain dual-license, but new provider
>> code, for example, should be submit-able under GPL.
> 
> I do not support that recommendation.
> 
> The FSF has made very clear their position on GPL licensing of plugins
> (see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html), and allowing a
> GPLv2 only plugin or library code would break our community's promise
> to our customers - that the library core is usable in any application.
> 
> It would be a complicated discussion if someone proposed a GPLv2 only
> provider.
> 
> A LGPLv2-only provider would be more acceptable, and I would encourage
> anyone who wishes to have the protections of the GPLv2 in their
> provider to go that route. I suspect it would still be controversial.
> 
> I would prefer to see us continue with the dual license approach, and
> obviously all OFA member companies have agreed to do that.

I agree with Jason here.  Dual license or at least LGPL is needed on
providers because they will be linked to by other programs.  Libraries
shouldn't taint user programs.  But we do have some leaf code in the
overall rdma-core repo.  Things like iwpmd and ibacm.  These could be
licensed GPL only and still be OK.  So I think it's OK for the repo to
support GPL only, we just have to be clear about the fact that GPL only
is not the default as this repo is more about libraries than leaf utilities.


-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>    GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD
  Red Hat, Inc.
  100 E. Davie St
  Raleigh, NC 27601 USA


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 907 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Christoph Hellwig]

Hi Jason,

any chance you could simply follow the modern debian copyright file
format:


 https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

This format lists the copyright applying to each file while allowing
grouping for multiple files.  I think that's the best way to document
the licensing situation for a project that hasa few different licenses.

The catchall in this format also gives a good statement on what the
default for the repository should be.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:00:53AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> any chance you could simply follow the modern debian copyright file
> format:

I was thinking about doing that.. But choose not to for this first
draft.

1) I'd have to go and unwind on a file by file basis exactly what
   every licnese is. Right now I've just done a survey. There are many
   copyrightable files with no license text, and many potentially
   non-copyrightable files with no license text as well. All that
   needs to be figured out first.

   I would like to add at least short license headers to every file.
2) It seems to require listing the copyright owners for every file,
   this is a royal pain, IMHO. Many copyrightable files do not have
   copyright data, so it would have to be mined out of git. I have
   a script that does that someplace..

My thinking was to start small, document the survey results (and agree
my interpetation is sensible), then work on achiveing full copyright
headers, then use that to build the debian format.

I'd appreciate help, eg patches moving toward #1 and eliminating the
free COPYING files and unlicnesed items. I think it will take a bit to
get there, I still have a bit wack of patches to get applied on other
topics..


Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Doug Ledford]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1819 bytes --]

On 9/29/16 12:16 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:00:53AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> any chance you could simply follow the modern debian copyright file
>> format:
> 
> I was thinking about doing that.. But choose not to for this first
> draft.
> 
> 1) I'd have to go and unwind on a file by file basis exactly what
>    every licnese is. Right now I've just done a survey. There are many
>    copyrightable files with no license text, and many potentially
>    non-copyrightable files with no license text as well. All that
>    needs to be figured out first.
> 
>    I would like to add at least short license headers to every file.
> 2) It seems to require listing the copyright owners for every file,
>    this is a royal pain, IMHO. Many copyrightable files do not have
>    copyright data, so it would have to be mined out of git. I have
>    a script that does that someplace..
> 
> My thinking was to start small, document the survey results (and agree
> my interpetation is sensible), then work on achiveing full copyright
> headers, then use that to build the debian format.
> 
> I'd appreciate help, eg patches moving toward #1 and eliminating the
> free COPYING files and unlicnesed items. I think it will take a bit to
> get there, I still have a bit wack of patches to get applied on other
> topics..

I just merged a pull request of yours, and that was the last outstanding
pull request in the github.  I still have to sort through patches on the
list that aren't in the github interface...but at least 20 or so of your
outstanding patches were taken in today.


-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>    GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD
  Red Hat, Inc.
  100 E. Davie St
  Raleigh, NC 27601 USA


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 907 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:26:48PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:

> I just merged a pull request of yours, and that was the last outstanding
> pull request in the github.  I still have to sort through patches on the
> list that aren't in the github interface...but at least 20 or so of your
> outstanding patches were taken in today.

Yep thanks, making progress, sent another 13 or so, I think there are
about 10 left now. Most of what remains in my preview tree needs a bit
more work I think.

The last big useful item is the directory rename/flatting patches, eg
to move libX/src/ to under providers/ and to flatten other directories.

Oh, and the packaging files..

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Leon Romanovsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2766 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:34:21AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 08:10:03PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> > I sure that this question will sound dumb for you, but can we unify all
> > code under OFA's licenses (dual-license)? I don't feel comfortable with
> > this multi-license situation.
>
> It is an excellent question.
>
> To do this we would need the OFA to talk to each of the member
> companies and get them to sign some kind of legal change of copyright
> document. Assuming all of the member companies agree, and all the
> member companies are the exhaustive copyright owners then the code can
> be placed under a single uniform license.
>
> As I understand it all OFA members were required to agree to use a
> specific licensing scheme, including specific license text when they
> signed the OFA membership agreement. What we are seeing here is that
> the corporate legal side agreed to something but the developers made
> small errors along the way, and those errors were later copied by
> other developers and spread widely. So the OFA has a basis for
> requests of this nature.
>
> For instance, a legal statement from Mellanox that all code they
> contributed is available under the GPLv2 or *either* MIT or FreeBSD
> license varient would allow immediately placing all Mellanox
> copyrighted code under the single Default License. I expect this is
> what Mellanox intended to do anyhow, the fact that ibverbs and all
> their providers had an error in the COPYING file is simply
> an unfortunate mistake.
>
> These sorts of license issues are typical in historical code bases. I
> would say we are in pretty good shape, from what I can tell absolutely
> everything is unambiguously licensed under at least the GPLv2, or a
> compatible license.
>
> Almost everything is alternatively licensed under some kind of BSD
> license. The notable exception is ipathverbs and rxe. It is also
> unfortunate we have so many BSD variants.
>
> Further, almost all C code is licensed under the dual GPLv2/OpenIB.org
> (MIT) license. The kernel is similar, almost all C code is using the
> MIT variant. Hence my desire to make that the license for new code in
> the tree.
>
> I would say this is a pretty good result.
>
> My ultimate suggestion is that we push the non-default copyright into
> the impacted files, eg add short licenses headers to the man pages,
> etc, and then delete the extraneous COPYING files once every single
> file has a correct license statement. From that point we can look at
> switching individual files based on the above Legal process to the
> Default License, or just leave them as is - a historical quirk.

It looks like a lot of work to do and it can be handled by anyone.
Can OPA handle this?

>
> Jason

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Leon Romanovsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2975 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:49:39PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:34:21AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 08:10:03PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > > I sure that this question will sound dumb for you, but can we unify all
> > > code under OFA's licenses (dual-license)? I don't feel comfortable with
> > > this multi-license situation.
> >
> > It is an excellent question.
> >
> > To do this we would need the OFA to talk to each of the member
> > companies and get them to sign some kind of legal change of copyright
> > document. Assuming all of the member companies agree, and all the
> > member companies are the exhaustive copyright owners then the code can
> > be placed under a single uniform license.
> >
> > As I understand it all OFA members were required to agree to use a
> > specific licensing scheme, including specific license text when they
> > signed the OFA membership agreement. What we are seeing here is that
> > the corporate legal side agreed to something but the developers made
> > small errors along the way, and those errors were later copied by
> > other developers and spread widely. So the OFA has a basis for
> > requests of this nature.
> >
> > For instance, a legal statement from Mellanox that all code they
> > contributed is available under the GPLv2 or *either* MIT or FreeBSD
> > license varient would allow immediately placing all Mellanox
> > copyrighted code under the single Default License. I expect this is
> > what Mellanox intended to do anyhow, the fact that ibverbs and all
> > their providers had an error in the COPYING file is simply
> > an unfortunate mistake.
> >
> > These sorts of license issues are typical in historical code bases. I
> > would say we are in pretty good shape, from what I can tell absolutely
> > everything is unambiguously licensed under at least the GPLv2, or a
> > compatible license.
> >
> > Almost everything is alternatively licensed under some kind of BSD
> > license. The notable exception is ipathverbs and rxe. It is also
> > unfortunate we have so many BSD variants.
> >
> > Further, almost all C code is licensed under the dual GPLv2/OpenIB.org
> > (MIT) license. The kernel is similar, almost all C code is using the
> > MIT variant. Hence my desire to make that the license for new code in
> > the tree.
> >
> > I would say this is a pretty good result.
> >
> > My ultimate suggestion is that we push the non-default copyright into
> > the impacted files, eg add short licenses headers to the man pages,
> > etc, and then delete the extraneous COPYING files once every single
> > file has a correct license statement. From that point we can look at
> > switching individual files based on the above Legal process to the
> > Default License, or just leave them as is - a historical quirk.
>
> It looks like a lot of work to do and it can be handled by anyone.
> Can OPA handle this?

Sorry,
OFA and not OPA.

>
> >
> > Jason



[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]