From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AD9C433E0 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 19:14:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C3821744 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 19:14:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1596222894; bh=yDUMHAutsuG8eBiDswnmTI5W5AVOWyH5v67BHEc1KVY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=u3pQJbYnlZm4xHNBmNVyFUvj18dDIW8L8QGcomma/YKj2GkfzJJ4PKyKUlQTDmvYu c1uuKXRCGWM+3pAhTcVHzx3JBFX7gW0mQi6h2OJURFJckrEuzWAYjWAo735Cmb16gj SPaMMMpknL6SPaip3r0ZQbgx2rFJxbnE+kfOeSF4= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728086AbgGaTOy (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:14:54 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35560 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726726AbgGaTOy (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:14:54 -0400 Received: from sol.localdomain (c-107-3-166-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [107.3.166.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17ECF21744; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 19:14:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1596222893; bh=yDUMHAutsuG8eBiDswnmTI5W5AVOWyH5v67BHEc1KVY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kY/c//rqZ+Zozgx+rbkAdCkjTgbqhVi/lTw+tBEaHttPc0t2kBzik3Iv19GFA1nRX JDoc+LWnl6q73LtEFVXbJ7EGRntYbI8Out7MbXkvvU5CY7xDEK1qE+0UyoxoG3PA37 Tp/PmHHFFWSpjfvD/VDc9zZbEU9ePA5Aanl+Qc7o= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 12:14:51 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Chris Mason Cc: Jes Sorensen , Jes Sorensen , linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Split fsverity-utils into a shared library Message-ID: <20200731191451.GA840@sol.localdomain> References: <20200211000037.189180-1-Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com> <20200211192209.GA870@sol.localdomain> <20200211231454.GB870@sol.localdomain> <20200214203510.GA1985@gmail.com> <479b0fff-6af2-32e6-a645-03fcfc65ad59@gmail.com> <20200730175252.GA1074@sol.localdomain> <0d5c5b1d-2170-025e-2cc1-75169bb33008@gmail.com> <6CCA1B7E-63A2-4E8C-BD9D-A7F34E6F488D@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6CCA1B7E-63A2-4E8C-BD9D-A7F34E6F488D@fb.com> Sender: linux-fscrypt-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 01:47:36PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On 31 Jul 2020, at 13:40, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > > On 7/30/20 1:52 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:49:07PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > > > > We'd also need to follow shared library best practices like > > > > > compiling with > > > > > -fvisibility=hidden and marking the API functions explicitly with > > > > > __attribute__((visibility("default"))), and setting the > > > > > 'soname' like > > > > > -Wl,-soname=libfsverity.so.0. > > > > > > > > > > Also, is the GPLv2+ license okay for the use case? > > > > > > > > Personally I only care about linking it into rpm, which is GPL > > > > v2, so > > > > from my perspective, that is sufficient. I am also fine making > > > > it LGPL, > > > > but given it's your code I am stealing, I cannot make that call. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jes, I'd like to revisit this, as I'm concerned about future use > > > cases where > > > software under other licenses (e.g. LGPL, MIT, or Apache 2.0) might > > > want to use > > > libfsverity -- especially if libfsverity grows more functionality. > > > > > > Also, fsverity-utils links to OpenSSL, which some people (e.g. > > > Debian) consider > > > to be incompatible with GPLv2. > > > > > > We think the MIT license would offer the > > > most flexibility. Are you okay with changing the license of > > > fsverity-utils to > > > MIT? If so, I'll send a patch and you can give an Acked-by on it. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > - Eric > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > I went back through my patches to make sure I didn't reuse code from > > other GPL projects. I don't see anything that looks like it was reused > > except from fsverity-utils itself, so it should be fine. > > > > I think it's fair to relax the license so other projects can link to it. > > I would prefer we use the LGPL rather than the MIT license though? > > > > CC'ing Chris Mason as well, since he has the auth to ack it on behalf of > > the company. > > MIT, BSD, LGPL are Signed-off-by: Chris Mason > > We’re flexible, the goal is just to fit into the rest of fsverity overall. > > -chris Thanks Chris and Jes. At least on Google's side, a permissive license generally makes things easier for people -- even though in practice we'll be upstreaming all changes anyway. Since fsverity-utils is only a small project and is unlikely to be customized much by people (as it's closely tied to the upstream kernel support), for now I'd rather not create problems for users or cause duplication of effort. If it were a larger project, or something people would be more likely to customize, the case for LGPL would be stronger IMO. There are also OpenSSL linking exceptions out there even for the LGPL (!), so I'm not sure everyone agrees that one isn't needed... I'd like to avoid wasting time on any such issues and just write code :-) Note that we can always choose to move to LGPL later, but LGPL => MIT won't be possible (since in line with kernel community norms, for fsverity-utils we're only requiring the DCO, not a CLA). I think we shouldn't go down a one-way street too early. I've send out a patch to change the license. Can you two explicitly give Acked-by on the patch itself? Thanks! - Eric