Re: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h
From: Kristian Fiskerstrand
Date: Sun Feb 10 2019 - 18:09:19 EST
On 1/23/19 9:50 AM, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> Ben Finney <bignose@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Domenico Andreoli <cavok@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> the situation of dwarves-dfsg improved a lot over the weekend
>> That's good to hear. What is the event you're referring to? Can you give
>> a URL to something that describes this change?
> Upstream (in CC) reacted to my request of clarification and patches
> have been applied upstream and on Salsa. See bug 919356  (please
> keep in CC).
>>> the only knot left is now the license of hash.h
>>> This file is also present in the kernel  with an updated copyright
>>> but still without license.
>> The file you show (in the Linux code base) seems likely to have an
>> equivalent implementation under a different license, from some other
>> code base.
> This will require research and work unlikely to be done before Buster
> release. Are we going to drop this package for now?
>>> I received a private email from somebody in the kernel community who
>>> already tried to contact Nadia in the past but did not get any reply.
>> Thank you also for contacting the Linux developers forum to ask
> (also in CC now)
>>> I think that pushing it to non-free is formally the right thing but I
>>> actually feel it's not the right thing.
>> To know that work (that file) is free software, we need a clear grant of
>> some specific license, for that work.
>> If the work is not free, it would be incorrect to have the work in Debian.
> Is it possible that for the kernel it is instead correct because it is,
> as whole, covered by its COPYING?
>> Alternatives, for complying with the Debian Free Software Guidelines with
>> this package, include:
>> * Find a credible grant of license under some GPL-compatible free
>> license to that exact file. Document that explicit grant in the Debian
>> package. This demonstrates the work is DFSG-free.
>> * Convince âdwarves-dfsgâ upstream to replace that file with a different
>> implementation (I don't know whether such an implementation exists)
>> under a license compatible with the same version of GNU GPL. Document
>> that explicit grant in the Debian package. This demonstrates the
>> modified work is DFSG-free.
> Arnaldo, what priority would you give to this task?
>> * Replace that file in Debian only, with a different implementation as
>> above. Document that explicit grant in the Debian package. This
>> demonstrates the modified Debian package is DFSG-free.
>> * Move the work to the ânon-freeâ area.
>> * Remove the work altogether.
>> Those are in descending order of (my recommended) preference.
>  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919356
It was [pointed out] by one of our license group that [hash.h] is the
same that has a GPL-2+ in [fio] which has a signed-off-by.
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
Description: OpenPGP digital signature