On Sat, Jul 03, 2021 at 06:46:46AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 12:02:30PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 07:21:12AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:05:40PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,953 @@ > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later > > > > +/* > > > > + * sysfs test driver > > > > + * > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2021 Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > + * > > > > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > > > > + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free > > > > + * Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or at your option any > > > > + * later version; or, when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or > > > > + * when incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following > > > > + * license: > > > > > > This boilerplate should not be here, only the spdx line is needed. > > > > As per Documentation/process/license-rules.rst we use the SPDX license > > tag for the license that applies but it also states about dual > > licensing: > > > > "Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license, > > e.g. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a > > permissive license like BSD, MIT etc." > > > > Let me know if things should change somehow here to clarify this better. > > The spdx line is not matching the actual license for the file, which is > wrong. We don't have spdx license tag yet for copyleft-next, and although when using dual gplv2 or copyleft-next gplv2 applies I did fail to see can use spdx for dual licensing such as: # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause > And "copyright-left" is not a valid license according to our list of > valid licenses in the LICENSES directory, so please do not add it to > kernel code when it is obviously not needed. You mean copyleft-next. Yes I'd have to add that. Given that we already have two test drivers with that license I'll go ahead and add that. > And given that this is directly interacting with sysfs, which is > GPLv2-only, trying to claim a different license on the code that tests > it is going to be a total mess for any lawyer who wants to look into > this. Just keep it simple please. The faul injection code I added follows the exact license for sysfs. The only interaction with the test_sysfs and sysfs is an exported symbol for a completion structure. The other dual gpl OR copyleft-next test drivers already present in the kernel also use exported symbols too, so I see nothing new here. Luis
