D-bus model proposal for pay for access features - LicenseService at OpenBMC

[Sunitha Harish]

On 13-10-2023 09:43, Brad Bishop wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:32:09PM +1030, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
>> On Fri, 2023-10-06 at 13:17 -0400, Brad Bishop wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 07:29:27AM -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 10:21:01AM +0530, Sunitha Harish wrote:
>>> > > Hi Patrick,
>>> > >
>>> > > Re-starting this discussion with the design that is being worked at
>>> > > License Manager: Add license manager design (Ibd6c6f35) · Gerrit 
>>> Code
>>> > > Review (openbmc.org) 
>>> <https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/docs/+/64710>.
>>> >
>>> > I've already written enough on this topic.  You've not added much in
>>> > terms of what I've already written, so I'm not sure what more you 
>>> want
>>> > me to say.
>>>
>>> I just want to say that OEMs have many, many happy customers that 
>>> gladly
>>> pay for unlocking things.  They just don't typically hang out here 🙂.
>>> I just bought a BMC license key the other day for my ~8 year old
>>> Supermicro x10slh-f.  For what it is worth.  I know a lot of people 
>>> have
>>> a problem with charging for security fixes but this is bigger than just
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>> Brad: Given the interest, are you able to provide feedback on IBM's
>> design proposal?
>>
>> https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/docs/+/64710
>
> Hah - that's what I get for opening my mouth 🤣.  I wouldn't say I'm 
> interested.  I'm not sure why I felt compelled to respond - Maybe I 
> was just feeling chatty and wanted to support one of my fellow server 
> OEMs.
>
> Anyhow, I took a quick look and in general the proposal seems lacking 
> in details.  References to dbus objects and interfaces need to be 
> filled in with details.  "License data" needs to be explained - what 
> is it, in terms of Redfish and DBus?  Other vague statements about 
> Redfish need to be explained in specific terms of the new schema 
> (resources, actions, etc). Interactions between applications need to 
> be spelled out explicitly (more dbus interfaces?).  The resulting 
> Redfish data model is not apparent to me (I admit I've never looked at 
> the new schema, but I do know a thing or two about Redfish so ideally 
> I shouldn't need to?).  Much like the Redfish concern, the PLDM data 
> model needs to be expanded upon and explained in terms of a PLDM 
> specification.

Thank you Brad & Andrew, we will address your feedback and update the 
design document accordingly.

>
>> More broadly, setting aside Patrick's legal concerns,
>
> And they do seem like reasonable concerns, but I am not a lawyer. I 
> don't think engineers are going to be able to allay those concerns.
Yes. Based on Patrick's concerns - is it still a legal concern if BMC 
works as a mediator to forward the license to the host, without 
processing or installing the license at BMC? Host is not an OpenSource 
code, and any OEMs can do their proprietary implementations as needed.
>> I think for this
>> to go anywhere it has to be demonstrated that there's a group of people
>> needing a solution 
>
> Isn't this self-evident from the schema being adopted by the DMTF?
>
+1
>> and some collective interest in maintaining one. If
>> we can't get multiple parties to collaborate on a design then I don't
>> see a reason for trying to maintain it upstream.
>
> How many parties collaborated on getting FSI into Linux?   How many 
> parties are collaborating on <foocorp>-misc or <platform>-misc?  Are 
> those different somehow?
>
We are looking forward for the collaboration from the community on this 
feature.
>> From a personal perspective, the concept grinds badly against common
>> believes and values in open source software projects and I'm not going
>> to go out of my way to support it. 
>
> I'm sure it probably sounds like I'm advocating for this feature. I'm 
> really not.  I'm trying to generally improve my understanding of what 
> types of code submissions are welcome and what kinds are not through 
> questions.  Maybe I just need to stop looking for patterns where none 
> exist...

Thank you Brad for your views. Please continue.

If there are any technical concern about this feature, we will work on 
that as per the comments received on the design document. Legal concern 
can be resolved by finding out a way forward together as a community.

Thanks & regards,
Sunitha