[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] [SCSI] scsi_dh: change scsi_dh_detach export to EXPORT_SYMBOL
    On Fri, Apr 20 2012 at  7:14pm -0400,
    Alan Cox <> wrote:

    > > Sure Alan, seize on "proprietary" and "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL".. and gloss
    > > right over the fact that what is being proposed is reasonable.
    > I suggest you read the licence document.
    > > Any multipath driver should be able to detach a scsi_dh module. As is
    > > evidenced by the fact that they can already make use of sysfs to do so.
    > They can call the _GPL version if they are GPL, so there is no problem.
    > > Relaxing the scsi_dh_detach interface makes it easier for a long
    > > standing proprietary driver to get out of Linux's way.
    > So we are back to this being for a proprietary driver trying to link with
    > GPL code.
    > > _Upstream_ has kept it that way because we've been concerned about
    > > breaking PowerPath in enterprises where Linux is deployed. Upstream has
    > > been good citizens to the fault of Linux.
    > Not from where I am standing. It sounds like upstream has suffered for
    > the benefit of a dubious proprietary module.
    > > > I'm a rights holder. Domain expertise isn't relevant here. The code I
    > > > provided is licensed under the GPL. Whether the symbol is EXPORT_SYMBOL
    > > > or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL any derivative code (eg code that requires the
    > > > kernel be modified to match it) cannot call it.
    > >
    > > Remind me again when you ever developed anything to do with scsi_dh?
    > It's part of the same kernel. It's GPL code. You can take your own code
    > and relicense it to be non GPL if you wish, but not mine nor Greg's nor
    > anyone elses.

    The scsi_dh maintainer (Chandra) acked the change. Hannes, the author of
    scsi_dh_attach, acked the change. You don't have a leg to stand on.
    Time for you to face that fact.

    > > To be clear: PowerPath doesn't _need_ this. Not even close.
    > Then we don't need to apply it ? Thank you for clarifying that.
    > > Linux is improved by not having to walk on egg shells that attaching a
    > > helpful linux-only layer in kernel will somehow screw up some 3rd party
    > > software that a customer values.
    > That's a problem for Red Hat. Don't dump it on upstream. If the kernel
    > would work better with scsi_dh always attached we should always attach
    > it. It's the problem of the out of tree people how they cope. They'll
    > figure something out.
    > And you still have the same confusion
    > There is no "Linux only" magic in _GPL. Any derivative work of a GPL work
    > must be distributed under the GPL.

    You asserting something doesn't make it so.

    > > You still don't get it... yet you'll saber rattle behind generic GPL
    > > lawyer-up nonsense.
    > This has gone far enough but it seems your management has already jumped
    > on it. Not my preferred way of handling such matters but Red Hat legal and
    > PR need to rein you in before you cause some serious damage.

    What the hell are you talking about?

    Please stop the insanity.

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-21 01:37    [W:0.032 / U:9.424 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site