On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:52 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof(a)kernel.org> 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
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.