On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:52 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 04:29:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:44:57AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > diff --git a/lib/test_sysfs.c b/lib/test_sysfs.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..2a6ec072da60 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/lib/test_sysfs.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,894 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1 > > > > Again, sorry, but no, I am going to object to this license as you are > > only accessing a GPL-v2-only api. Any other license on a file that > > interacts with that, especially for core stuff like testing the > > functionality of this code, needs to have that same license. Sorry. > > Huh? The license is GPL-v2 compatible, and when used in the kernel the > GPLv2 applies. > > Likewise, are you taking the position that permissively licensed code, > say BSD or ISC licensed code, cannot use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() symbols? Just chiming in here, not really because of any association with the copyleft-next license (or GPLv2 for that matter) but because of general personal immersion in open source licensing. I would think that code interacting with a GPLv2-only api could be under any GPLv2-only-compatible license, such as ISC, GPLv2-or-later, or copyleft-next. That said, of course kernel maintainers can establish stricter policies around acceptable forms of licensing. Richard
