Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool
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.
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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 <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: YueHaibing <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: Sean Young <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: Jiri Benc <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: David Calavera <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: Andrey Ignatov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: Joe Stringer <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: David Ahern <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: Petar Penkov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: Sandipan Das <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: Prashant Bhole <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: John Fastabend <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: Taeung Song <email@example.com>
> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <email@example.com>
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <email@example.com>
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