Add an explicit statement clarifying that generated BPF code bundled inside a libbpf skeleton header may have a license distinct from the skeleton header (in other words, the bundled code does not alter the skeleton header license). This is a follow-up from a previous thread discussing licensing terms: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/54d3cb9669644995b6ae787b4d532b73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#r Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst index b19c433f41d2..05bc1b845e64 100644 --- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst +++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst @@ -89,4 +89,8 @@ Packaging BPF programs with user space applications Generally, proprietary-licensed applications and GPL licensed BPF programs written for the Linux kernel in the same package can co-exist because they are -separate executable processes. This applies to both cBPF and eBPF programs. +separate executable processes. In particular, BPF code bundled inside a libbpf +skeleton header may have a different license than that of its surrounding +skeleton. In other words, the license of the bundled BPF code does not alter the +license of the skeleton header nor of a program including the header. This +paragraph applies to both cBPF and eBPF programs. -- 2.34.1
