On 05/20/2016 02:46 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
>>> Does this mean that the code you want to add to libibverbs will be tainted
>> with GPL
>>> since they come from the Linux kernel.
>>
>> I guess so.
>>
>>> I know that there are a lot of people that will not use a GPL library, since
>> it could
>>> taint their applications with GPL if they
>>> link to that library. I thought that is why LGPL was invented to prevent
> such
>> tainting.
>>
>> I could utilize the code from FreeBSD. Does that allow me to submit this to
>> libibverbs under the dual GPL/BSD license?
>>
>
> I think I can just re-implement these services myself based published works
> describing the memory barrier assembly for ARM (like the document Jason
> referenced earlier). That will avoid any tainting.
>
> Doug: Will that work?
Either way works actually. IANAL, but I've been told this multiple
times and will relay my possibly flawed memory of the legal issue. The
original patch, even though lifted from the linux kernel, is likely to
fall under the scope of "operationally defined" code. In other words,
the specific patch you wrote and the thing it implemented is so rigidly
defined by what it does, that there really is little to no room for any
different expression of the code. When there is no room for different
expressions, the code is not copyrightable.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
