Re: [PATCH] samples/bpf: relicense bpf_insn.h as GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause

[Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3359 bytes --]

On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 01:05 +0100, luca.boccassi@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> 
> libbpf and bpftool have been dual-licensed to facilitate inclusion in
> software that is not compatible with GPL2-only (ie: Apache2), but the
> samples are still GPL2-only.
> 
> Given these files are samples, they get naturally copied around. For example
> it is the case for samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h which was copied into the systemd
> tree: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/main/src/shared/linux/bpf_insn.h
> 
> Dual-license this header as GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause to follow
> the same licensing used by libbpf and bpftool:
> 
> 1bc38b8ff6cc ("libbpf: relicense libbpf as LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause")
> 907b22365115 ("tools: bpftool: dual license all files")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> ---
> Most of systemd is (L)GPL2-or-later, which means there is no perceived
> incompatibility with Apache2 softwares and can thus be linked with
> OpenSSL 3.0. But given this GPL2-only header is included this is currently
> not possible.
> Dual-licensing this header solves this problem for us as we are scoping
> moving to OpenSSL 3.0, see:
> 
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2021-September/046882.html
> 
> The authors of this file according to git log are:
> 
> Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@intel.com>
> Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
> Chenbo Feng <fengc@google.com>
> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
> Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
> Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
> Joe Stringer <joe@ovn.org>
> Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
> 
> (excludes a commit adding the SPDX header)
> 
> All authors and maintainers are CC'ed. An Acked-by from everyone in the
> above list of authors will be necessary.
> 
> One could probably argue for relicensing all the samples/bpf/ files given both
> libbpf and bpftool are, however the authors list would be much larger and thus
> it would be much more difficult, so I'd really appreciate if this header could
> be handled first by itself, as it solves a real license incompatibility issue
> we are currently facing.
> 
>  samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h b/samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h
> index aee04534483a..29c3bb6ad1cd 100644
> --- a/samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h
> +++ b/samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */
>  /* eBPF instruction mini library */
>  #ifndef __BPF_INSN_H
>  #define __BPF_INSN_H

Hello Alexei and Daniel,

We got the following acks so far:

Acked-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Acked-by: Chenbo Feng <fengc@google.com>
Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joe@ovn.org>
Acked-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Acked-by: Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
Acked-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Acked-by: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>

Magnus covers Intel's portion, and Simon covers Netronome's portion.

So as far as I understand, only your two acks are missing and then it's
job done and we can go home!

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]