[openib-general] InfiniBand incompatible with the Linux kernel?

Fri Oct 8 15:48:46 PDT 2004

At 01:22 PM 10/8/2004, Greg KH wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Enough people have been asking me about this lately, that I thought I
>would just bring it up publicly here.
>
>It seems that the Infiniband group (IBTA) has changed their licensing
>agrement of the basic Infiniband spec.  See:
>         http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18922
>for more info about this.
>
>The main point that affects Linux is the fact that now, no non-member of
>the IBTA can implement any working Infiniband code, otherwise they might
>run into legal problems.  As an anonymous member of a IBTA company told
>me:
>         If someone downloads the spec without joining the IBTA, and
>         proceeds to use the spec for an implementation of the IBTA spec,
>         that person (company) runs the risk of being a target of patent
>         infringement claims by IBTA members.

Caution: I'm not a lawyer so the following discussion is just a personal 
opinion.

Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to any IP 
contained within the specifications or on the technologies that surround 
the specification.  The change in spec cost, while clearly unfortunate, has 
no impact on the IP rights.   IP rights are defined by the IBTA membership 
agreement (just like they are for PCI and any number of other technologies 
used within the industry).  If you want to implement a technology, then you 
have to be a member of the appropriate organization and agree to the same 
industry-wide terms that others do.  Hence, this problem is not IB-specific 
but a fact of life within the industry.

>Another person, wanting to remain anonymous stated to me:
>         In justification for this position people say that they are just
>         trying to get more people to join the IBTA because they need the
>         dues, which by coincidence are $9500 per year, and point out
>         that some other commonly used specs are similarly made available
>         for steep prices. I don't know one way or the other about that
>         but this sounds a lot like the reason that we all gave ourselves
>         for NOT including SDP in the kernel[1].
>
>So, even if a IBTA member company creates a Linux IB implementation, and 
>gets it into the kernel tree, any company who ships such a implementation, 
>who is not a IBTA member, could be the target of any patent infringement 
>claims[2].

Again, this is true of many technologies not just IB.  For example, if a 
company has patents on PCI Express and someone implements a device / 
chipset / whatever and they are not part of the PCI-SIG, then they can be 
subject to different terms than someone who is a member of the PCI-SIG.  In 
both cases, the access to specs, etc. has nothing to do with IP licensing.

>So, OpenIB group, how to you plan to address this issue?  Do you all have 
>a position as to how you think your code base can be accepted into the 
>main kernel tree given these recent events?

This problem isn't just an OpenIB issue.  It is true for the IETF, PCI-SIG, 
USB, PCMCIA, etc. which all have technologies with varying degrees of 
patents.  Even going beyond what is in these various industry 
organizations, there are also many companies who have patents on protocol 
off-load, OS bypass, copy avoidance, RDMA, QoS algorithms, etc.   Does any 
subsystem implemented in or on top of Linux suddenly stop work because 
there is IP involved?

>thanks,
>
>greg k-h
>
>[1] SDP, for those who do not know, is a part of the IB spec that 
>Microsoft has come out and stated they they currently own the patents that 
>cover that portion of the specification, and that anyone who wants to 
>implement it, needs to get a licensing agreement with them.  Of course, 
>that license agreement does not allow for a GPLed version of the 
>implementation.

SDP was derived from Winsocks Direct.  Microsoft may have IP associated 
with the specification.  Other companies who worked on SDP may also have 
IP.   One does not know all of the IP that may exist in any technology 
until someone attempts to enforce their rights.

>[2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a 
>target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there, but 
>the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go
>after non-IBTA members who touch IB code[3].

I don't see how this can be asserted.  The IBTA defines the licensing 
requirements for member companies.  It is the companies that own the IP 
that  have to enforce their IP; the IBTA has no role in the process other 
than to set a level playing field for those that participate in the 
IBTA.  This is true for other industry organizations as well.

>[3] An insanely stupid position to take, given the fact that any normal 
>industry group would be very happy to actually have people use their 
>specification, but hey, the IB people have never been know for their 
>brilliance in the past...

The same can be stated for many different technologies.  The IBTA is no 
different than the rest of the industry and was founded using the same 
principles already in use in the industry at that time.  In general, these 
operating principles are still in sync with other organizations so it is 
not clear that you can blame the IBTA as doing something outrageous when 
all of this has been known and published on the IBTA web site from the start.

Mike 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://openib.org/pipermail/openib-general/attachments/20041008/8fe74771/attachment.html