From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Sven Eckelmann Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:13:00 +0100 Message-ID: <3609615.V5ZD6Euj8K@sven-edge> In-Reply-To: <20171123154329.GE30167@lunn.ch> References: <20171119140517.24329-1-sven@narfation.org> <7304207.KlJx96cEKj@bentobox> <20171123154329.GE30167@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3280967.PehHDCzncB"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH 8/9] batman-adv: Change batman_adv.h license to MIT List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andrew Lunn Cc: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org --nextPart3280967.PehHDCzncB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Donnerstag, 23. November 2017 16:43:29 CET Andrew Lunn wrote: [...] > I just looked at Linus's current master branch: >=20 > ~/linux/include/uapi$ grep -hr SPDX * | sort | uniq -c=20 > 14 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > 541 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > 113 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > 1 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AN= D MIT) */ > 21 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR= BSD-2-Clause) */ > 17 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR= BSD-3-Clause) */ > 4 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) O= R BSD-3-Clause) */ > 3 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR= MIT) */ > 3 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > 3 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > 15 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */ >=20 > We are in the region of "Lies, damn lies, and statistics", but > everything with an SPDX tag has some form of GPL/LGPL. Now, adding > SPDX tags is a new activity, and adding the GPLs tags have been done > first, since they are easier to do. So it could be there are a lot of > UAPI header files which are not {L}GPL. Also, given this small sample, > it seems BSD is more popular over MIT. Problem here is how the most SPDX stuff was added (until now). Mostly thing= s=20 got an SPDX tag which either didn't contain any license information or whic= h=20 used a rather obscure way of informing the user about the license. If I sea= rch=20 for some (not perfect) markers of the ISC then I can find 471 files (includ= ing the nl80211.h which was the original reason to chose the ISC). And I find 3= 154 for MIT and 2371 for BSD (no idea which version is more popular here). I=20 cannot be really sure about the results until the proper SPDX tags=20 were added. $ git grep -l 'Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or '|wc -l=20 471 $ git grep -l 'Permission is hereby granted, free of charge'|wc -l 3154 $ git grep -l 'Redistributions of source code must'|wc -l 2371 > I understand the reasons for ISC to MIT, so >=20 > Acked-by: Andrew Lunn Thanks > However, i wounder if GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note OR one of the > BSD variants would be more consistent with the rest of the kernel? =46rom a popularity contest perspective, the BSD licenses seem to lose (I=20 could be wrong here). But some of the BSD license variants are also under t= he=20 LICENSES/preferred/ folder in Thomas Gleixner's latest patchset (which was= =20 prepared with Linus & Co. [1]). So technically, the BSD-2 would also work. To the "GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note" part - we have currently the probl= em=20 that this file usually doesn't exist in a packaged form on Linux systems=20 (yet). Usually, people are just building the external kernel module when they want= =20 the latest features and then build their software *not* against the headers= of=20 the external module. And this means that people tend to integrate the file = in=20 their software (even we do that) to be able to access it when compiling it.= =20 And I would like to avoid that people are scared of using netlink (with=20 batman_adv.h) because they would have to package a GPL-2.0 (+some extra stu= ff)=20 licensed file. It seemed to be the easiest/cleanest move to have the file under a permissi= ve=20 license. Especially because this file only contains the IDs used when communicating with batman-adv over netlink and some (brief) documentation. That said, I personally don't know of any closed-source software which uses= =20 the batman-adv netlink interface. Kind regards, Sven [1] at least I've read more than once that a this or that decision cannot be changed because Linus said so :) --nextPart3280967.PehHDCzncB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEF10rh2Elc9zjMuACXYcKB8Eme0YFAloXD6wACgkQXYcKB8Em e0bFzA/9H1eXuOH22zLlWYBqkzo+8l6TIhfmFEOiC5EtdG/2vCkti6YitEzHfAEm bpLJGUmX/zyneWgzUi/XLq3bsBs6N54mobeD5CiDasgmQJtTRZbyd5UA9/S0cAHJ 7aYk7sX2qe/hhsa4udsnWvTMLuA/xnp43drayOhnAZ+F3kc0kEYWhe63YhZylKCO EEHwNB7WX8XHttMMJ/HEt9NyVYjUNqKOv2trMmkQ6oLm5+/PRJoIhhr3f2AVgS2z nhGBnOB+2Og21f2pRSboRZQdYIYAKcDWSH4znHdi2uO1sC015Jxfg4PKP1bzqUOe Pvise+vYIUYFMHu/REKoTRu0FVYjesaXDC3JmAyCgX+cudqj5d1z+5yHL1REeSqp +ss4AiQz8pRuxj5+Wm485dJZAiWjWYTVOgagm7Qwzas419Eelqecf54UxC4ObvSm kOyA7GV1Z6wh8+ov/hEjW3zwggOIMM2daGbCa9B3hPX4GUHui4InxzhZQYmwJKZM 5xU8l8Oft/ZnnsJvSEh/nv2/e6mPtr9Phjnr3jsHI7Lx3u6zbW4dnF81ga4g+fH9 3weWcR81QXmcZdenQz8ReEs9lBuhzB89U2nYp0Y1mBq2j1gkZi1vang2COZS3B3N hPVAx/fTkA8hBbGnpcySTe9lmDchA+0/jhUfKNwB+aSymkhXSQA= =N+rn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3280967.PehHDCzncB--