Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > One other, related question: vmlinux.h (generated by "bpftool btf dump file >> /sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux format c"), does not currently contain a license >> declaration. I assume this would have to be a GPL header, since vmlinux.h >> references many GPL'd Linux kernel structs and similar, though again I'm not a >> lawyer and therefore am not certain. Would you all agree with this? If so, any >> objection to a patch adding an SPDX line to the generated vmlinux.h? >> >> Is vmlinux DWARF data GPL'ed? I certainly hope not. So vmlinux.h >> shouldn't be licensed under GPL. > > I have no idea; I had assumed that a struct definition coming from a > GPL-licensed header would have to be GPL, but again, not a lawyer, and > I could totally be wrong. If not GPL though, what would the license > be? Is it just "output of a program" and therefore license-less, even > though the output happens to be code? Totally not a lawyer either, but: There's (generally, in many jurisdictions, etc), a minimum bar for when something is considered a "creative work" and thus copyrightable. Debug output *could* fall short of this (and thus not be copyrightable at all). It could also fall under the same "API" umbrella as that famous Google v Oracle case. Or it could fall under the "syscall exception" of the kernel source. I guess it would take a court decision to know either way. IMO it would make sense if vmlinux.h is not copyrightable for whatever reason, but, again, IANAL :) Anyway, while we obviously can't resolve legal matters on the mailing, we can express the *intention* of the community, which is what the licensing document is trying to do. So it totally makes sense to mention vmlinux.h here; the question is what should such a text say? -Toke
