On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 04:57:55PM +0000, Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:17 AM > > To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: tj@xxxxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; minchan@xxxxxxxxxx; jeyu@xxxxxxxxxx; shuah@xxxxxxxxxx; bvanassche@xxxxxxx; > > dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx; joe@xxxxxxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx; rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > spdx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/12] selftests: add tests_sysfs module > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:37:56AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/lib/test_sysfs.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,921 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1 > > > +/* > > > + * 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 is a very strange license grant, which I'm not sure is covered by any > current SPDX syntax. > " when distributed separately from the Linux kernel or when incorporated into > other software packages, subject to the following license:" drivers/xen/events/events_fifo.c has that same language. > Why would we care about the license used when the code is used in a non-kernel > project? If it is desired for the code to be available outside the kernel under a > different license, then surely the easiest thing is to make it available separately > under that license. I'm not sure why the kernel needs to carry this license for > non-kernel use of the code. > > I would recommend giving this a GPLv2 SPDX header, and maybe in the comment > at the top of the file put a reference to a git repository where the code can be > obtained under a different license. Keeping the dual let's new updates directly on the kernel benefit from evolution. A fork would stagnate it in place and would require updates separately. Luis
