> On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [snipped the marketing BS and getting straight to the point..]
Not marketing BS. Simple facts on the background of the issues. Do not mischaracterize my remarks.
>> 5. The only one in this thread trying to force a license of others is not the OFA.
>
> That is not the case. OFA has been constantly pushing through various
> channels to force Dual licensing of RDMA related code contribute to the
> Linux kernel.
>
> Can you please confirm on behalf of the OFA board that OFA will stop
> bullying Linux kernel contributors or otherwise try to influence
> licensing of code contributed to the Linux kernel that has not been
> developed by the OFA.
>
> Once we have that sorted out I think we're all in violent agreement.
As I in my email, I do not speak for OFA or my organization. I am speaking for myself.
The issue is code was added in between the vendors’ Verbs drivers (now called providers?) and the upper layer protocols (ULPs) that is GPL only. The code standardizes common code paths that each ULP previously implemented. Hopefully the code is more stable and a fix there fixes it everywhere. This code allows the ULPs to focus on their protocol-specific behavior. Technically, this is a good thing.
The issue, I believe, from the OFA’s perspective is that code that they mostly developed and contributed (drivers and ULPs) which is dual-licensed to allow it to be used in non-Linux OSes has been reduced and something critical inserted in between that cannot be used in non-Linux OSes (*BSD or Windows). Thus, there is heartburn.
The OFA cannot change the fact that this code has been accepted in the kernel. The OFA asked that it be dual-licensed and the answer was no. The OFA cannot do anything about that.
AS for bullying Linux kernel contributors, many contributors are vendor employees and, as everywhere, the employer dictates the license for the code produced at company expense. For contributors that are not employees of OFA members, the OFA has no influence or impact, thus no means to bully.
I believe the goal of OFA’s request for dual-licensing of the new code was legitimate from their perspective. I also believe the decision of the developer is his own and no one can force him to change.
I am trying to understand the issue from both points of view. Again, I ask you to help me understand how requesting dual-licensing hurts the adoption of RDMA technology. I can understand the vendor’s concerns about having to write software twice for GPL and non-GPL environments.
Again, I am a user that wants standards that allow innovation and competition. Help me understand.
P.S. I will be neither at the LPC or the RDMA Summit.
P.P.S. Remember, I am only speaking for myself and not the OFA or my employer.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
