Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754019AbZJ1OQH (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:16:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753705AbZJ1OQG (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:16:06 -0400 Received: from tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.54]:33313 "EHLO tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752062AbZJ1OQF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:16:05 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqwEAMzq50pGGN1W/2dsb2JhbACBT9h4hD8EgWE Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:11:05 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Ingo Molnar , James Bottomley Cc: GeunSik Lim , Zhaolei , Wu Fengguang , Jesper Juhl , Adrian Bunk , Harvey Harrison , "Robert P. J. Day" , Jaswinder Singh Rajput , Frederic Weisbecker , Steven Rostedt , Lai Jiangshan , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dominique Toupin , Michel Dagenais , Pierre-Marc Fournier Subject: Re: Relicensing tracepoints and markers to Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2,headers to Dual BSD/GPL Message-ID: <20091028141105.GA20031@Krystal> References: <20091023160257.GA30447@Krystal> <20091023160632.GA2198@Krystal> <20091026015357.GA6033@localhost> <023001ca55e1$436e38e0$808410ac@zhaoleiwin> <49b7c2350910252203o69811000w4551c01e6e2a10c7@mail.gmail.com> <20091026073048.GC8162@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <20091026073048.GC8162@elte.hu> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.27.31-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 09:53:31 up 71 days, 43 min, 2 users, load average: 0.55, 0.44, 0.38 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5315 Lines: 134 * Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > > * GeunSik Lim wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Zhaolei wrote: > > > * From: "Wu Fengguang" > > > Subject: Re: Relicensing tracepoints and markers to Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2,headers to Dual BSD/GPL > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 05:03:52AM +0800, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > (updated email for Jesper Juhl) > > >>> > > > >>> > * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca) wrote: > > >>> > > Hi, > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I would like to re-license the tracepoint.c/marker.c files from GPL to: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > * Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2 license. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > And re-license tracepoint.h/marker.h to: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > * Dual BSD/GPL v2 license. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > The goal is to allow sharing code between the kernel tracer and UST > > >>> > > (User-Space Tracer) project, which is a LGPL v2.1 library. Tracepoint > > >>> > > and marker headers might need to be included by proprietary or BSD > > >>> > > applications, hence the dual BSD/GPL v2 license for these two. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I currently have the OK from Kosaki Motohiro for Fujitsu contributions, > > >>> > > which includes Zhao Lei and Lai Jiangshan. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > The missing approvals for Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2 relicensing are: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > For tracepoint.c: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Jaswinder Singh Rajput > > >>> > > > > >>> > > For marker.c: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > "Robert P. J. Day" > > >>> > > Adrian Bunk > > >>> > > Harvey Harrison > > >>> > > > >>> > Jesper Juhl > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> I don't think I have enough significant changes in there to actually > > >>> require my approval for relicensing, but since you ask; I personally > > >>> do not have a problem with that file being Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL v2 > > >>> licensed. > > >> > > >> Me too. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Fengguang > > > > > > Me too. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Zhaolei > > > > Sorry for the late reply. Why do we need a different license to GPLV2 > > sources that contributors submitted.? As Mathieu mentioned, I think > > that GPLV2 based some sources needs to be relicense to trace > > non-GPL applications > > for some developers and some companies. > > > > In real, Some open source like QT, MySQL is licensed using dual > > license for business strategy. tracepoint.c/marker.c file is GPLv2 > > currently. > > > > Can we re-distribute with dual license (e.g: bsd/gplv2 or lgpl > > 2.1/gplv2) about some source of linux kernel source? I think that > > linux kernel source is GPLv2 only. Frankly speaking, I am not know > > exactly about legal issues of your questions. > > Yes, the legality of such relicensing is questionable as that code was > never developed outside of the kernel but as part of the kernel. > > But i also disagree with it on a technical level: code duplication is > _bad_. Why does the code have to be duplicated in user-space like that? > I'd like Linux tracing code to be in the kernel repo. Why isnt this done > properly, as part of the kernel project - to make sure it all stays in > sync? > Hi Ingo, I would like to know more about what role you think a kernel vDSO can have in static instrumentation of user-space applications. Basically, static instrumentation has to be declared in the application. In the current Ftrace scheme (same for LTTng), probes have to be specifically built for each instrumentation site (this is the purpose of TRACE_EVENT). Given this has to be integrated with the application build/link phases, I do not see the gain in doing static instrumentation through a vDSO. Data extraction is a separate topic though, and could possibly benefit from being done from within the kernel. However, the tracer implementations for kernel vs user-space contexts will differ due to locking which has to be done slightly differently in both contexts (e.g. RCU read-side cannot be used from a vDSO). If we find a way to keep the difference between the kernel and user-space implementation to a minimum, which can be expressed using preprocessor macros, maybe it could be worth it. But in any case, I think it will be useful to prototype this in a stand-alone userspace library first and get it in the hand of users ASAP. Then we can compare and decide which is the optimal technical solution. Technical aspect aside, I'm concerned about your attitude of blocking progress of competitive technical solutions through licensing arguments. It is not really helping global progress here. I'd much prefer to discuss on a technical ground and not mix that with licensing goo. Thanks, Mathieu > So for those two grounds i cannot give my permission for this > relicensing, sorry. > > Ingo -- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/