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=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 7EF42C41514 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:10:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E17D2133F for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:10:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727661AbfHPUKw (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:10:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27618 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726527AbfHPUKw (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:10:52 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBDA554F66; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from carbon (ovpn-200-29.brq.redhat.com [10.40.200.29]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE3D84D14; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:10:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 22:10:25 +0200 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer To: Greg KH Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com, kernel-team@fb.com, Michael Holzheu , "Naveen N . Rao" , "David S . Miller" , Michal Rostecki , John Fastabend , Sargun Dhillon , brouer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: relicense bpf_helpers.h and bpf_endian.h Message-ID: <20190816221025.239e9e94@carbon> In-Reply-To: <20190816171529.GA20099@kroah.com> References: <20190816054543.2215626-1-andriin@fb.com> <20190816141001.4a879101@carbon> <23a87525-acf5-7a7e-b7b6-3c47b9760eeb@iogearbox.net> <20190816171529.GA20099@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 19:15:29 +0200 Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:29:27PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 8/16/19 2:10 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:45:43 -0700 > > > Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > > > bpf_helpers.h and bpf_endian.h contain useful macros and BPF helper > > > > definitions essential to almost every BPF program. Which makes them > > > > useful not just for selftests. To be able to expose them as part of > > > > libbpf, though, we need them to be dual-licensed as LGPL-2.1 OR > > > > BSD-2-Clause. This patch updates licensing of those two files. > > > > > > I've already ACKed this, and is fine with (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause). > > > > > > I just want to understand, why "BSD-2-Clause" and not "Apache-2.0" ? > > > > > > The original argument was that this needed to be compatible with > > > "Apache-2.0", then why not simply add this in the "OR" ? > > > > It's use is discouraged in the kernel tree, see also LICENSES/dual/Apache-2.0 (below) and > > statement wrt compatibility from https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html: > > > > Valid-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 > > SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/Apache-2.0.html > > Usage-Guide: > > Do NOT use. The Apache-2.0 is not GPL2 compatible. [...] You didn't quote the continuation from LICENSES/dual/Apache-2.0 Usage-Guide: Do NOT use. The Apache-2.0 is not GPL2 compatible. It may only be used for dual-licensed files where the other license is GPL2 compatible. If you end up using this it MUST be used together with a GPL2 compatible license using "OR". The way I read it, is that you can use it with "OR", like: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR Apache-2.0 > That is correct, don't use Apache-2 code in the kernel please. Even as > a dual-license, it's a total mess. Good, I just wanted to understand why. > Having this be BSD-2 is actually better, as it should be fine to use > with Apache 2 code, right? Yes, that is also my understanding. And it better be as this is needed, as we want libbpf to be used by https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/ which is Apache-2.0. > Jesper, do you know of any license that BSD-2 is not compatible with > that is needed? No. -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer