Re: [PATCH v9 3/6] selftests: add tests_sysfs module

Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-spdx,org.kernel.vger.linux-block,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest
Message-ID <87fsl1iqg0.ffs@tglx>
Greg,

On Fri, Dec 03 2021 at 16:29, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:44:57AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

sorry for missing this thread. I came accross it now as I'm looking into
the licensing mess again.

>> +// 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.

That's a bogus argument. First of all the code is dual licensed and
second we have enough code in the kernel which is licensed MIT/BSD and
happily can access the GPL-v2-only APIs.

Aside of that we have already code in the kernel which is dual licensed

     GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1

We just can't make it SPDX clean because copyleft-next-0.3.1 is not in
LICENSING.

While I agree that we want to keep the number of licenses as small as
possible, we cannot really dictate which dual licensing options a
submitter selects unless the license is GPL-2.0-only incompatible, which
copyleft-next is not.

Can we just get over this, add the license with the SPDX identifier and
move on?

Thanks,

        tglx
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.