On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:16:10AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:49:50PM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:50:17AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > Please see > > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/merge_requests/72 > > > > > > > > Ugh. We cannot currently package bpftool in Debian. There are several > > > > GPLv2-only files in its source tree, and it links unconditionally > > > > against the GPLv3 libbfd. :( > > > > > > If we relicense the GPLv2-only files to be GPLv2-only OR BSD-2-Clause > > > - like the majority of bpftool sources - would that work? > > > > > > I wanted to make sure GPLv2-only + BSD-2-Clause will satisfy the > > > license requirement when linking against libbfd, before I start chasing > > > people for acks on the relicense :) > > > > Yes, the BSD 2-clause license is OK. GPLv2 or greater would be OK, too. > > It's really just GPLv2-only in this case that's causing the problem. > > Hi, > > the following merge-commit, which has been accepted into bpf-next > for inclusion in v4.21, addresses the problem raised above by > clarifying that the licence of bpftool is GPLv2-only + BSD-2-Clause. > > commit 00842be52f2015c3c1028e16b565f325f4ca20fc > Merge: 8f9a8a619311 907b22365115 > Author: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> > Date: Thu Dec 13 12:08:45 2018 +0100 > > Merge branch 'bpf-bpftool-license-update' > > Jakub Kicinski says: > > ==================== > We are changing/clarifying the license on bpftool to GPLv2-only + > BSD-2-Clause for all files. Current license mix is incompatible > with libbfd (which is GPLv3-only) and therefore Debian maintainers > are apprehensive about packaging bpftool. > > Acks include authors of code which has been copied into bpftool (e.g. > JSON writer from iproute2, code from tools/bpf, code from BPF samples > and selftests, etc.) > > Thanks again to all the authors who acked the change! > ==================== > > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com> > Acked-by: YueHaibing <yuehaib...@huawei.com> > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com> > Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <s...@google.com> > Acked-by: Sean Young <s...@mess.org> > Acked-by: Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com> > Acked-by: David Calavera <david.calav...@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Andrey Ignatov <r...@fb.com> > Acked-by: Joe Stringer <j...@wand.net.nz> > Acked-by: David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Petar Penkov <ppen...@stanford.edu> > Acked-by: Sandipan Das <sandi...@linux.ibm.com> > Acked-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Taeung Song <treeze.tae...@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jo...@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> > CC: okash.khaw...@gmail.com > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
Hi Noah, I believe that the above commit resolves the licence problem that was raised earlier. Is it possible to find a way to move forwards on packaging bpftool?
