On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 17:27 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Ok, I've complained about this before, but due to the fact that you are > calling EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() only functions in this code, the ability for > it for someone to use the BSD license on it in the future, is pretty > much impossible, right? No, only to call these functions from BSD-only (or other licensed) modules. > Wasn't the openib group going to drop this horrible license, or are they > still insisting on porting this to other operating systems? I don't think we need to drop this license. What is the harm? At some point, Sun may want OpenSolaris to use OpenIB. Or what if the Darwin folks decide to create a port? Don't worry: the OpenIB Windows work is done in a completely different repository with a completely different code base because Microsoft was scared of code that ever *was* GPL, even if a BSD-only fork was created. The bylaws of OpenIB.org require that all code hosted and developed under our auspices be (at least) BSD. I don't want it to happen, but if the code in Linux chooses one license (GPL) and not both, then we won't be able to accept patches back that come in through the mainline kernel. -tduffy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- [PATCH 04/16] IB uverbs: add user verbs ABI header
- From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
- From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
- From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 04/16] IB uverbs: add user verbs ABI header
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 7/13]: PCI Err: Symbios SCSI driver recovery
- Next by Date: Re: reiser4 plugins
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
- Next by thread: Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH 05/16] IB uverbs: core implementation
- Index(es):