Headers files with BSD license in kernel

DISCUSSION Miguel Bernal Marin 5 participants 8 messages Jun 9, 2015 – Jun 10, 2015

Share & tools

Miguel Bernal Marin

author

2015-06-09 18:03 UTC #0 lore raw

Hi,

I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers with BSD License

rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
rte_pci_dev_features.h

those are included in igb_uio module.

Are those licenses correct?

Thanks,
Miguel

Miguel Bernal Marin

author

2015-06-09 20:09 UTC #1 lore raw

Including maintainers in CC

Quoted 16 lines · Miguel Bernal Marin

Hi,
I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers with BSD License
rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
rte_pci_dev_features.h
those are included in igb_uio module.
Are those licenses correct?
Thanks,
Miguel

Zhang, Helin

2015-06-10 00:43 UTC #2 lore raw

Hi Miguel

My thought is there might be something wrong. Let's see what comments from other experts! Thank you very much for the good catch!

Regards,
Helin

Quoted 27 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Bernal Marin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Burakov, Anatoly; Zhang, Helin; Bernal Marin, Miguel
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel
Including maintainers in CC
Quoted 16 lines · Miguel Bernal Marin
Hi,
I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers with BSD License
rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
rte_pci_dev_features.h
those are included in igb_uio module.
Are those licenses correct?
Thanks,
Miguel

Stephen Hemminger

2015-06-10 01:15 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 35 lines · Helin

Hi Miguel
My thought is there might be something wrong. Let's see what comments from other experts! Thank you very much for the good catch!
Regards,
Helin
Quoted 27 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Bernal Marin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Burakov, Anatoly; Zhang, Helin; Bernal Marin, Miguel
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel
Including maintainers in CC
Quoted 16 lines · Miguel Bernal Marin
Hi,
I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers with BSD License
rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
rte_pci_dev_features.h
those are included in igb_uio module.
Are those licenses correct?
Thanks,
Miguel

You can always escalate a BSD license to GPL, but the other way is not allowed. Ideally, the language on the file should make it clear that it is dual licensed. In an ideal world, igb_uio would go away, I am working on that.

Zhang, Helin

2015-06-10 01:20 UTC #4 lore raw

Quoted 46 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:15 AM
To: Zhang, Helin
Cc: Miguel Bernal Marin; [email protected]; Bernal Marin, Miguel
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel
Quoted 3 lines · Helin
Hi Miguel
My thought is there might be something wrong. Let's see what comments from
other experts!
Quoted 30 lines
Thank you very much for the good catch!
Regards,
Helin
Quoted 25 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Bernal Marin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Burakov, Anatoly; Zhang, Helin; Bernal Marin, Miguel
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel
Including maintainers in CC
Quoted 13 lines · Miguel Bernal Marin
Hi,
I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers with BSD License
rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
rte_pci_dev_features.h
those are included in igb_uio module.
Are those licenses correct?

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks,
Miguel
You can always escalate a BSD license to GPL, but the other way is not allowed. Ideally, the language on the file should make it clear that it is dual licensed. In an ideal world, igb_uio would go away, I am working on that.

Yes, I agree with you. To be clearer, rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h should be in dual liceses, and rte_pci_dev_features.h should be in GPL license.

Thanks,
Helin

Thomas Monjalon

2015-06-10 08:55 UTC #5 lore raw

2015-06-10 01:20, Zhang, Helin:

Quoted 13 lines

From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[email protected]]
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines · Miguel Bernal Marin
Quoted 11 lines
Hi,
I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers with BSD License
rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
rte_pci_dev_features.h
those are included in igb_uio module.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Are those licenses correct?
You can always escalate a BSD license to GPL, but the other way is not allowed. Ideally, the language on the file should make it clear that it is dual licensed. In an ideal world, igb_uio would go away, I am working on that.
Yes, I agree with you. To be clearer, rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h should be in dual liceses, and rte_pci_dev_features.h should be in GPL license.

Yes, it is an error from this commit:

	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=88701645c98c9c88
These definitions were moved from a GPL file so they should keep the GPL header.
Then it is used in EAL:
	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=ff0b67d1c868c19

So it must be dual licensed, like for rte_pci_dev_ids.h:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci_dev_ids.h

Burakov, Anatoly

2015-06-10 09:01 UTC #6 lore raw

Quoted 27 lines

2015-06-10 01:20, Zhang, Helin:
Quoted 16 lines
From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[email protected]]
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines · Miguel Bernal Marin
Quoted 6 lines
Hi,
I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers with BSD License
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
rte_pci_dev_features.h
those are included in igb_uio module.
Are those licenses correct?
You can always escalate a BSD license to GPL, but the other way is not
allowed.
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Ideally, the language on the file should make it clear that it is dual
licensed.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
In an ideal world, igb_uio would go away, I am working on that.
Yes, I agree with you. To be clearer, rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h should be in dual liceses, and rte_pci_dev_features.h should be in GPL
license.
Yes, it is an error from this commit:

Quoted 8 lines

	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=88701645c98c9c88
These definitions were moved from a GPL file so they should keep the GPL
header.
Then it is used in EAL:
	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=ff0b67d1c868c19
So it must be dual licensed, like for rte_pci_dev_ids.h:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_eal/common/include/
rte_pci_dev_ids.h

Agreed, should have been more careful. Should I make the patch to correct this?

Thomas Monjalon

2015-06-10 09:09 UTC #7 lore raw

2015-06-10 09:01, Burakov, Anatoly:

Quoted 36 lines

Quoted 27 lines
2015-06-10 01:20, Zhang, Helin:
Quoted 16 lines
From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[email protected]]
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines · Miguel Bernal Marin
Quoted 6 lines
Hi,
I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers with BSD License
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h
rte_pci_dev_features.h
those are included in igb_uio module.
Are those licenses correct?
You can always escalate a BSD license to GPL, but the other way is not
allowed.
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Ideally, the language on the file should make it clear that it is dual
licensed.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
In an ideal world, igb_uio would go away, I am working on that.
Yes, I agree with you. To be clearer, rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h should be in dual liceses, and rte_pci_dev_features.h should be in GPL
license.
Yes, it is an error from this commit:
Quoted 8 lines
	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=88701645c98c9c88
These definitions were moved from a GPL file so they should keep the GPL
header.
Then it is used in EAL:
	http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=ff0b67d1c868c19
So it must be dual licensed, like for rte_pci_dev_ids.h:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_eal/common/include/
rte_pci_dev_ids.h

Quoted 1 line

Agreed, should have been more careful. Should I make the patch to correct this?

You are welcome :)