[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180529192643.GA3487@kmo-pixel>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:26:43 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Ciaran Farrell <ciaran.farrell@...e.com>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tso Ted <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jonas Oberg <jonas@...e.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:14:01PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The question over future possible PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux came up
> to me recently. While doing some quick of digging around I found code
> already under such license it seems:
>
> The file drivers/md/bcache/util.c has:
>
> cafe563591446 (Kent Overstreet 2013-03-23 16:11:31 -0700 318) /*
> cafe563591446 (Kent Overstreet 2013-03-23 16:11:31 -0700 319) * Portions
> Copyright (c) 1996-2001, PostgreSQL Global Development Group (Any
> cafe563591446 (Kent Overstreet 2013-03-23 16:11:31 -0700 320) * use
> permitted, subject to terms of PostgreSQL license; see.)
>
> That seems to indicate that we've had already PostgreSQL licensed code on
> Linux since Kent's addition of bcache to Linux in 2013. The portion of code
> is rather small though, to me it seems to cover only crc_table[],
> bch_crc64_update(), and bch_crc64(). Four things:
Yep, it's just that code.
>
> a) This is the only code on Linux which seems to use PostgreSQL
> b) The language for license seem to be cut off, 'see.' seems incomplete,
> whereas typically it would point to a file with the full language text.
> c) We can only infer what portions of the file are under this license
> d) Even though some licenses claim to be GPL-Compatible, if possible we
> should dual license such with the GPL if possible (*)
>
> If some folks are considering adding yet more code to Linux which is
> currently under a PostgreSQL license I figured reviewing the existing
> PostgreSQL code's use may be a good start to set precedent for future work.
> Since we already have at least one file with a PostgreSQL-sort-of boiler
> plate it at least sets the precedent we have already sort of dealt with
> PostgreSQL.
>
> My recommendations:
>
> As silly as it may be we should split out the PostgreSQL licensed code from
> drivers/md/bcache/util.c into its own file and while at it clarify the
> license.
>
> If possible, if we can dual license this code with GPL it would be good as
> it would do two things:
>
> 1) Removes any ambiguity in case of questions over GPL Compatibility in the
> future about the PostgreSQL license
>
> 2) Other folks considering using PostgreSQL licensed code on Linux have a
> template they can use
Sounds good to me, I'll defer to your judgement since you have more experience
with these things than me :) Let me know if there's anything you need from me. I
never modified that code besides renaming the functions, but dual licensing
would be fine by me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists