On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 01:05 +0100, luca.boccassi@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@xxxxxxxxxx> > > libbpf and bpftool have been dual-licensed to facilitate inclusion in > software that is not compatible with GPL2-only (ie: Apache2), but the > samples are still GPL2-only. > > Given these files are samples, they get naturally copied around. For example > it is the case for samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h which was copied into the systemd > tree: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/main/src/shared/linux/bpf_insn.h > > Dual-license this header as GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause to follow > the same licensing used by libbpf and bpftool: > > 1bc38b8ff6cc ("libbpf: relicense libbpf as LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause") > 907b22365115 ("tools: bpftool: dual license all files") > > Signed-off-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Most of systemd is (L)GPL2-or-later, which means there is no perceived > incompatibility with Apache2 softwares and can thus be linked with > OpenSSL 3.0. But given this GPL2-only header is included this is currently > not possible. > Dual-licensing this header solves this problem for us as we are scoping > moving to OpenSSL 3.0, see: > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2021-September/046882.html > > The authors of this file according to git log are: > > Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> > Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> > Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Chenbo Feng <fengc@xxxxxxxxxx> > Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Daniel Mack <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx> > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Joe Stringer <joe@xxxxxxx> > Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx> > > (excludes a commit adding the SPDX header) > > All authors and maintainers are CC'ed. An Acked-by from everyone in the > above list of authors will be necessary. > > One could probably argue for relicensing all the samples/bpf/ files given both > libbpf and bpftool are, however the authors list would be much larger and thus > it would be much more difficult, so I'd really appreciate if this header could > be handled first by itself, as it solves a real license incompatibility issue > we are currently facing. > > samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h b/samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h > index aee04534483a..29c3bb6ad1cd 100644 > --- a/samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h > +++ b/samples/bpf/bpf_insn.h > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */ > /* eBPF instruction mini library */ > #ifndef __BPF_INSN_H > #define __BPF_INSN_H Hello Alexei and Daniel, We got the following acks so far: Acked-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Chenbo Feng <fengc@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joe@xxxxxxx> Acked-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Daniel Mack <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@xxxxxxxxx> Magnus covers Intel's portion, and Simon covers Netronome's portion. So as far as I understand, only your two acks are missing and then it's job done and we can go home! -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
