Re: [PATCH v8 03/12] selftests: add tests_sysfs module

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 04:57:55PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:17 AM
> > To: Luis Chamberlain <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> > [email protected]; [email protected]
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > + *
> > > + * 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