nbdkit VS gitlab

This is correct, but doesn't quite explain why. It's because when you accept contributions from a variety of authors, without using a CLA, then your code base ends up with a patchwork of copyright, making relicensing practically impossible as you have to get buy-in from every author or else determine that author's contributions and remove/rewrite them.

GPL/LGPL are excellent licenses, but this patchwork of copyright can apply for any license you use. For a small project we wrote which was under BSD, we recently had to make a small (non-functional) change to the license, and we got buy-in from all the authors to do this which took quite a long time: https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/commit/952ffe0fc7685ea775...

That second link is wrong, should be: https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/commit/a956e2e75d6c88eeef...

I think an exception might be made for a plain "C-like" struct that doesn't initialize members or contain anything except basic types. In the specific example[0] the code is actually surrounded by extern "C" { ... } so I suppose that the compiler "knows" this is a plain C struct?

[0] https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/blob/cd761c9bf770b23f678f...

We relicensed[1] a project which had 10 contributors, and we got every single one of them to do an Acked-by (by email) which took some weeks. That was the advice from our lawyers. Can't imagine the impossible hassle of doing the same for something like Linux.

[1] https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/commit/952ffe0fc7685ea775...

Since the relevant code appears to be in the "ee" directory <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/v16.11.0-ee/ee/l...> and is not present in the foss repo, I'm guessing the answer is no, at least for now. They do have a history of "releasing" features from EE back to CE but my suspicion is not for LLM stuff

(Side note: Issues are usually hash-prefixed like #1234 both on GitLab and GitHub. However, commit messages must not begin with a hash, they would be considered a comment and ignored. Therefore, GitHub has introduced the alternative prefix GH- and I've contributed a similar prefix GL- to GitLab a while ago.)

and its "oh, you want multi-arch, do you?" friend. While prosecuting this <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/339567> I learned that https://hub.docker.com/layers/multiarch/qemu-user-static/7.2... actually mutates the binfmt_misc in buildx's context in order to exec the static copy of qemu in it https://github.com/multiarch/qemu-user-static/blob/v7.2.0-1/...

and, that the buildx plugin itself has some qemu magick in it, which got addressed in a minor version bump but I couldn't track down the relevant GitHub issue this second (I've flushed it from my mind, only recalling that there were a lot of actors in that tire fire)

This is actually a follow-up refactor, the fix is here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/commit/abe79e4ec43798...