Re: [PATCH libibverbs v3 1/3] Add new call ibv_cmd_create_ah_ex which supports extra parameters

[Knut Omang <knut.omang-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:51 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:05:50PM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that libsif is stuck under a BSD only license imposed by 
> > the first set of lawyers involved, and to be compatible, we need it 
> > to be dual license GPLv2 + BSD like the rest of the provider libraries.
> 
> Here is some (not a lawyer) information you may find helpful.
> 
> Oracle is an OFA member and part of the purpose of groups of OFA is to
> manage license issues across companies collaborating on the same code
> base. Oracle will have agreed to various things on this topic when
> they became a member. The OFA may be able to help you with your legal.
> 
> The OFA may choose to not distribute improperly licensed code in
> OFED/etc.
> 
> GPLv2 compatability is important. Not just for the consolidated tree,
> but for everyone. Distors will have complicated questions if asked to
> ship a GPLv2 incompatible plugin at the same time as shipping a GPLv2
> program that uses the plugin. You may find your module undistributed.
> 
> That said, it is widely regarded that the BSD 2 and 3 clause license
> varients are GPLv2 compatible on their own without any additional
> language.
> 
> My view on the OFA dual license scheme is that it is used to
> provide absolute certainty that the code is GPLv2 compatible.
> Many other projects rely on the compatibility without being explicit.
> 
> I would have no objection to a BSD 2/3 clause licensed provider in the
> consolidated tree.  (while being confused why adding the GPLv2 option
> is such a difficult problem, and re-emphasising the view that the code
> will be used and distributed under the GPLv2 in some situations.)
> 
> A GPLv2 incompatible option like the CDDL, Apache license, etc is not
> acceptable. Do not get creative and add new clauses to the stanard BSD
> license.
> 
> So, in short, I would urge you to work with your legal to use the OFA
> dual license. If that is completely impossible then a standard BSD
> license will work to some degree. Remember, it is very hard to change
> licenses after the fact.

Thanks for spending time on this, Jason, appreciated!
I'll bring it forward as best as I can. The point of piggybacking on the OFA
work on licensing is a good point I'll forward to the legal dep.
And this discussion also reinforces my argument that we, the SIF software team 
should persist in our request to get this right from the beginning.

Knut

> 
> 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
--
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