[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Rump on GNU/Hurd (4): Userspace PCI I/O

From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rump on GNU/Hurd (4): Userspace PCI I/O
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:33:59 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0

Hi Zheng Da,

First of all, allow me to show you my appreciation for your effort on 
DDE with the Hurd. The groundwork on creating facilities that enable userspace
drivers has been greatly helpful on this little project of mine.

Just to put you in context, I've ported Rump (http://rumpkernel.org/) to 
and written some extensions that allow it to run its own PCI drivers in 

For that I used the same facilities in Gnu Mach that libddekit is using, and 
imported some the code in libddekit for userspace interrupt management. Olaf 
below) believes that this code was written by you:

El 16/08/15 a les 21:02, Olaf Buddenhagen ha escrit:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 01:09:59PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:

* It includes code from other people under GPLv2;

   - intrthread() is heavily based on intloop() from

I haven't checked, but I assume this is form a Hurd-specific part of
DDE, which has been implemented by Zheng Da for the Hurd port
specifically? If so, we could try contacting him.

Is this correct?

I'm currently trying to merge the resulting code into Rump. This raises the
question on which license is the code in intloop() under. By lack of any other
statement one would have to assume it's GPLv2.

The Rump maintainer has some concern regarding licenses:

El 16/08/15 a les 15:14, Antti Kantee ha escrit:
>> * It includes code from other people under GPLv2; I'm not sure if this may 
be an issue wrt licensing
>>    policy of Rump as this is only targetted at the pci-userspace module. In 
any case if you
>>    think it's an issue let me know and we'll try to find a solution:
>>    - intrthread() is heavily based on intloop() from 
>>    [...]
> I'm not worried about GPL, but I am worried about someone using GPL accidentally when 
they did not intend to.  It's better if the code can offered under LGLP, but not a 
requirement.  One option would be to put Hurd support under "gpl/src-hurd".  Or 
just be very explicit about the licensing both in LICENSE and README.

So, to summarize, I'm writing this mail to find out about the authorship (can 
confirm it's yours?), and in case this is your code to see where you stand 
Antti's concerns. I.e. what's the current license terms; are you ok with 
relicensing; etc.

Please let us know about it!

Much appreciated,

Robert Millan

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]