On Tue, Mar 15, 2022, at 4:39 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:10 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexei,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022, at 2:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 4:01 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A concern about potential GPL violations came up at the new $DAYJOB when
>> >> I tried to vendor the vmlinux.h output. The central point was that the
>> >> generated vmlinux.h does not embed a license string -- making the
>> >> licensing of the file non-obvious.
>> >>
>> >> This commit adds a LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause SPDX license identifier to
>> >> the generated vmlinux.h output. This is line with what bpftool generates
>> >> in object file skeletons.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c | 1 +
>> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
>> >> index a2c665beda87..fca810a27768 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
>> >> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
>> >> @@ -425,6 +425,7 @@ static int dump_btf_c(const struct btf *btf,
>> >> if (err)
>> >> return err;
>> >>
>> >> + printf("/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) */\n\n");
>> >
>> > I don't think we can add any kind of license identifier
>> > to the auto generated output.
>> > vmlinux.h is a pretty printed dwarfdump.
>>
>> Just so I understand better, when you say "I don't think we can",
>> do you mean:
>>
>> 1) There may be legal issues w/ adding the license identifier
>> 2) It doesn't make sense to add the license header
>> 3) Something else?
>
> 2
Got it, thanks.
