| Message ID | 20190816054543.2215626-1-andriin@fb.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | BPF Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next] libbpf: relicense bpf_helpers.h and bpf_endian.h | expand |
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:45:43 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> 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" ? > Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Hechao Li <hechaol@fb.com> > Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> > Acked-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com> > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> > Acked-by: Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@fb.com> > Acked-by: Adam Barth <arb@fb.com> > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> > Acked-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> > Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz> > Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> > Acked-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > Acked-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Confirming I acked this. > Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> > Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> > Acked-by: Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> > Acked-by: Nikita V. Shirokov <tehnerd@tehnerd.com> > Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com> > Acked-by: Petar Penkov <ppenkov@google.com> > Acked-by: Teng Qin <palmtenor@gmail.com> > Cc: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > Cc: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@opensuse.org> > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> > Cc: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h > index 05f036df8a4c..ff3593b0ae03 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) */ > #ifndef __BPF_ENDIAN__ > #define __BPF_ENDIAN__ > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > index 8b503ea142f0..6c4930bc6e2e 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) */ > #ifndef __BPF_HELPERS_H > #define __BPF_HELPERS_H >
On 8/16/19 2:10 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:45:43 -0700 > Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> 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. [...] >> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> >> Acked-by: Hechao Li <hechaol@fb.com> >> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> >> Acked-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com> >> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> >> Acked-by: Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@fb.com> >> Acked-by: Adam Barth <arb@fb.com> >> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> >> Acked-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> >> Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz> >> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> >> Acked-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> >> Acked-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> >> Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> > > Confirming I acked this. > >> Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> >> Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> >> Acked-by: Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> >> Acked-by: Nikita V. Shirokov <tehnerd@tehnerd.com> >> Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com> >> Acked-by: Petar Penkov <ppenkov@google.com> >> Acked-by: Teng Qin <palmtenor@gmail.com> >> Cc: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Cc: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> >> Cc: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@opensuse.org> >> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> >> Cc: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me> >> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h | 2 +- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h >> index 05f036df8a4c..ff3593b0ae03 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h >> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ >> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) */ >> #ifndef __BPF_ENDIAN__ >> #define __BPF_ENDIAN__ >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h >> index 8b503ea142f0..6c4930bc6e2e 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h >> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ >> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) */ >> #ifndef __BPF_HELPERS_H >> #define __BPF_HELPERS_H >> > > >
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 <andriin@fb.com> 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. [...] That is correct, don't use Apache-2 code in the kernel please. Even as a dual-license, it's a total mess. Having this be BSD-2 is actually better, as it should be fine to use with Apache 2 code, right? Jesper, do you know of any license that BSD-2 is not compatible with that is needed? thanks, greg k-h
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 19:15:29 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 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 <andriin@fb.com> 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.
On 8/16/19 7:45 AM, 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. > > Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Hechao Li <hechaol@fb.com> > Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> > Acked-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com> > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> > Acked-by: Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@fb.com> > Acked-by: Adam Barth <arb@fb.com> > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> > Acked-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> > Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz> > Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> > Acked-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > Acked-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> > Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> > Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> > Acked-by: Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> > Acked-by: Nikita V. Shirokov <tehnerd@tehnerd.com> > Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com> > Acked-by: Petar Penkov <ppenkov@google.com> > Acked-by: Teng Qin <palmtenor@gmail.com> > Cc: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > Cc: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@opensuse.org> > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> > Cc: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> Applied, thanks!
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. Quite late, but FWIW: Acked-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - Naveen
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h index 05f036df8a4c..ff3593b0ae03 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) */ #ifndef __BPF_ENDIAN__ #define __BPF_ENDIAN__ diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h index 8b503ea142f0..6c4930bc6e2e 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) */ #ifndef __BPF_HELPERS_H #define __BPF_HELPERS_H